Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 44: Line 44:
 
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>  
  
<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle knowledge is <em>federated</em>.</p>  
+
<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle information is <em>federated</em>.</p>  
  
 
<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>   
 
<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>   
Line 52: Line 52:
 
<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
  
<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the <em>difference</em> it can make. </p>  
+
<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the difference it can make. </p>  
  
<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to enable us to see things whole.</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to help us see things whole.</blockquote>  
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
Line 61: Line 61:
 
</p>   
 
</p>   
  
<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose; and to explain how this purpose is achieved through <em>knowledge federation</em>. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides. And this looking at all sides—that is what <em>knowledge federation</em> is about.</p>  
+
<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose; and to explain how this purpose is achieved through <em>knowledge federation</em>. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides. This looking at all sides is what <em>knowledge federation</em> is about.</p>  
  
 
<h3>Its method</h3>  
 
<h3>Its method</h3>  
Line 67: Line 67:
 
<p>While 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 must be made clear from the start.</p>  
 
<p>While 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 must be made clear from the start.</p>  
  
<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways of looking at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>  
  
<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways to look at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have a similar meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>  
+
<p>The ways of looking are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>  
  
<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at a theme or issue—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with our conventional ones.</p>  
+
<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or <em>creation</em> of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.</p>  
  
 
<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>  
 
<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>  
Line 88: Line 88:
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Our challenge</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A difference to be made</h3>  
  
 
<blockquote>Suppose we used the <em>holoscope</em> as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>Suppose we used the <em>holoscope</em> as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?</blockquote>  
Line 252: Line 252:
 
<p>It is not difficult to see why. We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would one invest one's time to comprehend a proposal of this kind, when one already knows, when <em>the body</em> already knows (see the <em>socialized reality</em> insight), that this sort of idea is not something the academic people would go for.</p>  
 
<p>It is not difficult to see why. We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would one invest one's time to comprehend a proposal of this kind, when one already knows, when <em>the body</em> already knows (see the <em>socialized reality</em> insight), that this sort of idea is not something the academic people would go for.</p>  
  
<blockquote>This way of acting is, however, blatantly un-academic!</blockquote>
+
<p>But the academic way is to follow <em>ideas</em>—wherever they may take us!</p>  
  
<p>The academic way is to follow ideas—wherever they take us.</p>  
+
<blockquote>The Professor <em>X</em> way of acting is blatantly un-academic.</blockquote>
  
<p>If Galilei acted as Professor <em>X</em>, the Inquisition would still be deciding rights and wrongs. If Socrates did it, there would <em>be</em> no <em>academia</em>. </p>  
+
<p>If Galilei acted in that way, the Inquisition would still be deciding rights and wrongs. If Socrates did it, there would <em>be</em> no <em>academia</em>. </p>  
  
 
<p>We coined several [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to some of the ironic sides of this development—as food for thought, and to prime our [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>  
 
<p>We coined several [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to some of the ironic sides of this development—as food for thought, and to prime our [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>  

Revision as of 15:12, 15 November 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

Our proposal

Its essence

The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

Its substance

What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?

By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice.

We call the proposed approach to information knowledge federation when we want to point to the activity that distinguishes it from the common practices. We federate knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the way in which we handle information is federated.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

Like architecture and design, knowledge federation is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field and real-life praxis (informed practice).

We refer to our proposal as holoscope when we want to emphasize the difference it can make.

The purpose of the holoscope is to help us see things whole.

Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

We use the Holoscope ideogram to point to this purpose; and to explain how this purpose is achieved through knowledge federation. The ideogram draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by choosing the way we look; and by looking at all sides. This looking at all sides is what knowledge federation is about.

Its method

While 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 must be made clear from the start.

In the holoscope, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.

The ways of looking are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing.

This modernization of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or creation of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity ideogram. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.

To liberate our worldview 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.

A way of looking or scope—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or needs to be perceived (also) as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scope); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a dialog.

All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, as a collection of prototypes. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'. By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as academic field, and real-life praxis.

A vision

A difference to be made

Suppose we used the holoscope as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to a test.

Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following call to action:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."

Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

Peccei.jpg
Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology".

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"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."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".

Our future

Holotopia is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It ismore attractive than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the holotopia is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights.


FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

The five insights resulted when we applied the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes; "pivotal" because they determine the "course":
  • Innovation—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change
  • Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
  • Epistemology—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; which determine also the relationship we have with information
  • Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it
  • Values—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"

In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as prototypes, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.

The five insights establish an analogy between what is in store for us now, and the historical cultural revival.

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

We looked at the systems in which we live and work as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine how we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be.

Castells.jpeg

When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, the systems in which we live and work evolve as power structures—and we lose the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from systemic innovation, where we innovate by making things whole on the large scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made whole.

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

We looked at the social process by which information is handled.

Neil Postman observed:

“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they 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.”

We have seen that the new media technology is being used to make the handling of information that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient. And that core elements of the new technology were created to enable a completely different social process—whose result is function, and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create together, as cells in a human mind do.

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

We looked at the foundation on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we call epistemology. It was the epistemology change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible, and triggered a comprehensive change.

We have seen that a similarly profound fundamental change, with similarly broad practical consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.

Science eradicated prejudice and vastly expanded our knowledge—but only there where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We found that it possible to extend the scientific approach to all questions where knowledge can make a difference.

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness", and hence our society's "course".

We found that when proper 'light' is used to choose the 'way'—our pursuits and destinations will be entirely different.


Large change is easy

The course is a paradigm

The changes the five insights are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent. We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs', as the collective mind insight demands, unless systemic innovation (the capability to change systems) is in place—which is demanded by the power structure insight. And without having a general-purpose method or methodology for creating insights—which we proposed as a resolution for the narrow frame issue. We cannot resolve the convenience paradox issue, by using information to make choices—unless the 'lightbulbs' that can provide such information are in place.

We cannot make one of the required changes—without making them all.

We may here use Norbert Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the undesirable property of systems to maintain a stable structure and 'course' even when they are self-destructive! The system springs back and nullifies change.

It is because of this reason that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.

The strategy proposed by The Club of Rome—to shift focus from problems to the systemic condition from which they all stem—has in this way been confirmed.

A way to change course is in academia's hands

Paradigm changes, however, have their own logic, and a manner in which they need to proceed.

The system springs back and nullifies change. A stable pathological condition we call "disease". And we don't call something a "remedy" unless it has the power to flip the system out of its self-destructive configuration, and course, and onto the way of recovery.

The relationship we have with information is such a remedy.

It is a simple change from which all the other requisite changes naturally follow.

It is a change that is now mandated both for fundamental or intrinsic reasons, and for pragmatic or extrinsic ones—as the socialized reality insight has shown.

And it is a change that is fully in control of the academia—the highest educated and publicly sponsored knowledge workers.

We do not need to occupy Wall Street.

A far better strategy is to occupy the university.

And to us who are already in academic positions—there is really nothing to occupy. The change that is required to "change course" is already mandated by our occupation.

Human quality is the key

But what about the culture? What about "human quality"?

On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):

Human development is the most important goal.

A good way to put this "humanistic" perspective on our map is what Erich Jantsch called the "evolutionary" point of view or perspective. Jantsch explained it via the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which might be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us above the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us on the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to perceive ourselves as—water. We are evolution!


The "human quality" determines how we are as 'water'—and hence what our evolution will be like.

The power structure insight showed that when we are present in this evolutionary flow in the manner of advancing "our own" gains and position—the result is that we co-create damaging systems, the power structure; we become "the enemy".


To put this together with our other pivotal theme, the relationship we have with information, notice that changing this relationship should now be dramatically easier than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The academic tradition is now in power! But here's the rub: Ironically, by being in power, the academic tradition has become part of the power structure!

To see what this may mean practically, follow us in a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor X, has just received a knowledge federation proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced since well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?

When we do this thought experiment, Professor X moves on to his next chore without ado.

It is not difficult to see why. We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would one invest one's time to comprehend a proposal of this kind, when one already knows, when the body already knows (see the socialized reality insight), that this sort of idea is not something the academic people would go for.

But the academic way is to follow ideas—wherever they may take us!

The Professor X way of acting is blatantly un-academic.

If Galilei acted in that way, the Inquisition would still be deciding rights and wrongs. If Socrates did it, there would be no academia.

We coined several keywords to point to some of the ironic sides of this development—as food for thought, and to prime our dialog in front of the mirror.

From Newton we adapted the keyword giant, and use it for people whose contributions must be taken into account to see the emerging paradigm (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the giants tend to be routinely ignored! The academic 'turf' has been minutely divided; the giants would take way too much space.

From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword homo ludens, and use it (along the lines explained in socialized reality insight) to point out that we are not only the homo sapiens, as we tend to believe. The homo ludens (man the game player) does not seek information and knowledge to orient himself in the world; he simply learns what works, and does that to improve "his own" position. He relies on what Anthony Giddens called "ontological security".

We addressed our proposal to academia, and defined it as "institutionalized academic tradition". We have seen that the academia is the "systemic leverage point" for reversing our situation; that the university controls "a way to change course". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's historical role is to help us make progress along the homo sapiens track; to avoid becoming the homo ludens. The question must be asked—How is the academic tradition institutionalized? How does it socialize us?

What values—and what evolutionary course—does its ecology support?


A strategy

We will not solve our problems

A role of the holotopia vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):

"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

Still more concretely, we undertake to respond to this Mead's critical point:

"Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."

We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved".

Mead.jpg
Margaret Mead

Hear Dennis Meadows (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about five decades ago:

"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent above sustainable levels."

We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; hear Ronald Reagan set the tone for it, as "the leader of the free world".

A sense of sobering up, and of catharsis, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems.

Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.

Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. Hear Dennis Meadows say:

"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you change your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."

Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as symptoms of much deeper cultural and structural defects.

The five insights show that the structural problems now confronting us can be solved.

The holotopia offers more than "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly better than our present.

And it offers to change our condition now—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.

Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):

For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.

They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.

Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a variety of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".

The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.

From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword symbolic action, to make that risk more clear. We engage in symbolic action when we act within the limits of the socialized reality and the power structure—in ways that make us feel that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But symbolic action can have only symbolic effects!

We have seen, however, that comprehensive change must be our shared goal.


It is to that strategic goal that the holotopia vision is pointing.

By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.

The Holotopia project complements the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions possible.



We will not change the world

Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, the holotopia is a trans-generational construction project.

It is what our generation owes to future generations.

Our purpose is to begin it.

Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Mead explained what exactly distinguishes a small group that is capable of making a large difference:

"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but the small group of interacting individuals who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."

SagradaFamilia.png
Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)

This—capability to self-organize—is where "human quality" is needed. And that's what we've been missing.

The five insights have shown that again and again. Our stories are deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that the "appropriately gifted" have already offered us their gifts. And that what's lacking are "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" is what's been lacking. As this excerpt from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks' we have internalized the little institutional man who wants us to be one of the little cogs that mesh together; and keeps our larger self on a leash.

We will not try to engineer "success" by making human quality unnecessary. On the contrary! We make the creation of an order of things where human quality binds us to our shared purpose, and to one another, our "most important goal". We create an ecology that supports us in that.

We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance makes the substance crystallize according to its own shape. Our strategy is to be such 'crystal'.

This practically means that the holotopia will not grow by "push", but by "pull".

We will not change the world.
You will.


A mission

Many centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed socialized reality—that we live in a "reality" created in part by power play, and in part by our error-prone perception. The philosopher pointed to the development of ideas as the way to liberation.

The five insights showed that we are still in the 'cave'.
And that we are positioned to make a breakthrough, perhaps even liberate ourselves completely!

"A great cultural revival", a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition, is ready to begin as a great academic revival—just as the case was in Galilei's time.

Jantsch-university.jpeg

When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, to guide our society through a new phase in its evolution, we are not saying anything new. We only echo what others have said.

But the tie between information and action having been severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.
The mission of the Holotopia project is to restore the severed tie.

And enable knowledge to illuminate the way.

BrokenFeedback.jpeg

The above ideogram explains our mission in system-theoretic terms. The ideogram of course paraphrases what the Modernity ideogram has said; but it also explains how we undertake to 'substitute lightbulbs for candles': By developing systemic prototypes, and a feedback structure around them to update them continuously.

We will implement this mission in two steps.

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

The first step is to institutionalize knowledge federation as an academic field. This step is made actionable by offering a complete prototype of knowledge federation that includes everything an academic field may need, starting from epistemology and method on the one side, and ending with a community and a deployment strategy on the other.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to enable academic and other systems to evolve knowledge-based.

By reconfiguring academic work on design epistemology as foundation, knowledge federation undertakes to provide a uniquely fertile creative space, where young researchers can pursue academic careers by applying their creativity to induce change. Notably by combining state of the art information technology with available academic insights—to recreate our collective mind.

This step implements Erich Jantsch's call to action.

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

The second step is to "change course" toward the holotopia, by implementing the proposed prototype and a feedback structure around it, to update it continuously.

This step implements Aurelio Peccei's call to action.




The Holotopia prototype is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the holotopia vision.

We make this 'game' engaging and smoothly drawing to its aim by contributing this collection of tactical assets.


This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020. What is above is hopefully already readable; what follows is only a rough sketch.


Art

Holotopia is an art project.

KunsthallDialog01.jpg


The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.

The very thought of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old order of things manifesting a new one. When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged both the meaning of art and its limits. But the deconstruction of tradition has meanwhile been completed, and the time is now to construct.

What sort of art will manifest the holotopia?

In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre offered an answer—which we'll here summarize in holotopia's buddying vernacular.

The core problem with the social system we are living in, Lefebvre observed, is that our past activity, crystalized as power structure, keeps us "alienated" from our intrinsically human quest of wholeness. In our present conditions, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to turn this relationship upon its head:

"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."
As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces spaces where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.



The mirror

Mirror-Lab.jpeg
The mirror lands itself to artistic creation; the photo shows a sample of the prototypes from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.

Let us begin with the obvious: The mirror is a visual and symbolic object par excellence. In holotopia, however, its symbolism is further enriched by a wealth of concrete interpretations.

The mirror reflects the holotopia's enchanting, 'magical' touch.

There is an unexpected, wonderful and seemingly magical way out of the "problematique"; a natural and effective way to transform our situation. We do not need to colonize another planet (we would anyhow bring to it our cultural malaise). We can move to a different reality here and now—by seeing the world differently. Or metaphorically—by stepping through the mirror.

The mirror tells us that we need to look at the world by putting ourselves into the picture.

The mirror makes us aware of our socialized cognitive biases, and instructs us to use knowledge to see both ourselves and the world.

It has been pointed out that Donald Trump does not believe in science. But when we carefully examine ourselves in the mirror, we see don't do that either! Little Greta Thunberg does. She lives in the reality created by the scientists, and acts in a way that is consistent with it. But she was diagnosed of Asperger syndrome, and doesn't count as a counterexample. The truth is that all of us "normal" humans live in a socialized reality, created through body-to-body interaction; which is now vastly augmented by ever-present immersive media.

The mirror symbolizes the abolition of reification, and the ascent of accountability. By liberating ourselves from reification, we liberate ourselves from socialized reality and from power structure. We become empowered to create the way in which we see the world, to change our institutions, to begin "a great cultural revival".

The mirror is also a symbol of academic transformation.

In addition to the 'magical' solution to the "problematique", the mirror also has a sober side—where it reflects the need for academic self-reflection and transformation. This need is imposed academically and rigorously by the knowledge of knowledge we own.

Being a revolution of awareness, the holotopia has in academia its most powerful ally.

The mirror tells us most concretely how to begin "a great cultural revival", and make decisive progress toward developing "human quality". "Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of human cultivation. And isn't that what the mirror most naturally reflects?

We now have the great insights of 20th century science and philosophy, and the heritage of the world traditions—to help us know ourselves!

All we need to do is restore knowledge to power.

The dialog

The dialog, just as the mirror, is an entire aspect of the holotopia. This keyword defines an angle of looking from which the holotopia as a whole can be seen, and needs to be seen.

The mirror and the dialog are inextricably related to one another: Our invitation is not only to self-reflect, but also and most importantly to have a dialog in front of the mirror. The dialog is not only a praxis, but also an attitude. And the mirror points to the core element of that attitude—which David Bohm called "proprioception". But let's return to Bohm's ideas and his contribution to this timely cause in a moment.

The dialog is a key element of the holotopia's tactical plan: We create prototypes, and we organize dialogs around them, as feedback mechanisms toward evolving them further. And this dialog itself, as it evolves—turns us who participate in it into bright new 'headlights'!

Everything in our Holotopia prototype is a prototype. And no prototype is complete without a feedback loop that reaches back into its structure, to update it continuously. Hence each prototype is equipped with a dialog.

This point cannot be overemphasized: Our primary goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but to change our collective mind. Physically. Hands-on.

The dialog is an instrument for changing our collective mind.

The dialog is as different from our common way of communicating, as the holotopia is from the dystopia we are headed to. And academically—the story of its evolution began with Socrates and Plato, and still continues. Don't miss to read the article!




Five insights

While the role of the arts is to communicate and create, to put 'the dot on the i', the five insights model the holotopia's knowledge base. They ensure that what we communicate and create reflects the state of the art of knowledge in relevant areas of interest. Together, they compose a complete 'i', or 'lightbulb', or "headlights and steering", or "communication and control".

Holotopia33.jpeg

The symbolic language of the arts can condense the five insights to images and objects, place them into physical reality and our shared awareness—as the above paper models may suggest.

Everything in holotopia is a potential theme for a dialog. Indeed, everything in our holotopia prototype is a prototype; and a prototype is not complete unless there is a dialog around it, to to keep it evolving and alive.

In particular each of the five insights will, we anticipate, ignite a lively conversation.

We are, however, especially interested in using the five insights as a framework for creating other themes and dialogs. The point here is to have informed conversations; and to show that their quality of being informed is what makes all the difference. And in our present prototype, the five insights symbolically represent that what needs to be known, in order to give any age-old or contemporary theme a completely new course of development.

The five insights, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which both age-old and contemporary challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.

Here are some examples.

How to put an end to war?

What would it take to really put an end to war, once and for all?

The five insights allow us to understand the war as just an extreme case among the various consequences of our general evolutionary course, by "the survival of the fittest"—where the populations that developed armies and weapons had "competitive advantage" over those who "turned the other cheek". It is that very evolutionary course that the Holotopia project undertakes to change.

Alienation

This theme offers to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", the Western philosophical tradition with the Oriental ones, and the radical left with Christianity.

Enlightenment 2.0

By placing this conversation about the reissue of "enlightenment" in the context of the convenience paradox insight and the collective mind insight, two most interesting venues for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.

One of them is to use knowledge federation and contemporary media technology, powered by artistic and other techniques, to federate the kind of insights that can make the convenience paradox transparent, and inform "a great cultural revival". The other one to use the insights into the nature of human wholeness to inform the development and use of contemporary media technology. How do computer games, and the ubiquitous advertising, really affect us? In Intuitive introduction to systemic thinking we offered a couple of further interesting historical reference points, to motivate a reflection about this theme.


Academia quo vadis?

This title is reserved for the academic self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror, about the university's social role, and future.

This conversation may take a number of different directions.

One of them is to be a dialog about knowledge federation as a concrete prototype of a "transdiscipline". Such a dialog is indeed the true intent of our proposal; we are not proposing another methodological and institutional 'dead body'—but a way for the university to evolve its institutional organization and its methods, by federating insights into an evolving prototype.

A completely one would be to discuss the university's ethical norms and guidance. Should we be pursuing our careers in traditional disciplines? Or consider ourselves as parts in a larger whole, and adapt to that role?

This particular approach to our theme, however, also has a deeper meaning; and that's the one that its title is pointing to. Nearly two thousand years ago the ethical and institutional foundation of the Roman Empire was shaking, and the Christian Church stepped into the role of a guiding light. Can the university assume that role today?


Stories

Our stories are vignettes. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. A vignette is a meme, which may do more than convey ideas.

We here illustrate this technique by a single example, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart. In a fractal-like way, this story illustrates some of the "incredible" sides of the emerging paradigm, notably its difficulty to be seen and understood. The story will be told in the second book of the Holotopia series (with title "Systemic Innovation" and subtitle "Cybernetics of Democracy"), and here we give only highlights.



The elephant

Elephant.jpg
Elephant ideogram

The role of this metaphorical image, of an invisible elephant, is to point to a quantum leap in relevance and interest, which specific academic and other insights can acquire when presented in the context of "a great cultural revival".

There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.

Imagine the 20th century's thinkers touching this elephant: We hear them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.

Everything changes when we realize that what they are really talking about are 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an immensely large and exotic animal—which nobody has yet seen!

To make headway toward holotopia, we orchestrate 'connecting the dots'.

By manifesting the elephant, we restore agency to information and power to knowledge.

The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that there is no such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation. We can now take this evolution a step further.

What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate; with the post-structuralists, we acknowledge that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. Yet he undoubtedly saw something that invited a different way to see the world; and undertook to understand it and communicate it by taking recourse to the only paraigm that was available—the old one.

We give the study of cultural artifacts new relevance and rigor—by considering them as signs on the road, which point to a paradigm that now wants to emerge.


Keywords

A warning reaches us from sociology.

Beck-frame.jpeg

Beck explained this further:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

Isn't this a wonderful way to combine together several of our insights!

The message of the Modernity ideogram to begin with—that our traditional concepts will not serve us to understand and handle the post-traditional, fast-changing realities that surround us. That our inherited ways of looking at the world keep us driving by looking at rear-view mirror, as McLuhan phrased it, or in socialized reality as we did. And then the "iron cage" metaphor also points to the disempowerment we attempted to illuminate by elaborating on the all-important relationship between socialized reality and power structure.

We proposed the creation of keywords as remedy. By applying truth by convention, we can create completely new ways of looking at the world; we can give our old concepts new meanings.

An example we have seen (while discussing the socialized reality insight) is the definition of design as "alternative to tradition". This definition alone allows us "to understand the transformation into the post-traditional cosmopolitan world we live in today" in a way that shows how our thinking and acting needs to change. In a post-traditional culture we can no longer assume that our culture is taking us to wholeness; we must take charge—by consciously making things whole. Keywords such as design, and systemic innovation, mean in essence exactly that—how our thinking and acting needs to change in our new situation.

The very creation of keywords, by using truth by convention, is the way to design concepts. It is the handling of language that suits the post-traditional order of things—just as reification is the approach that the tradition depends on.

Our collection of keywords—once it is organized and presented—will provide an excellent entry point to holotopia as a whole. We here discuss only three—which will illustrate in a fractal-like way illustrate a spectrum of issues that the creation of keywords addresses.

Culture

In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.

We do not know what "culture" means!

Not a good venture point for developing culture as praxis (informed practice).

The keywords do not tell us what the defined concept "really means". Rather, a keyword defines a way of looking or scope. We may also think of it as a projection plane, where we project the thing being defined to see one of its sides or aspects.

Our definition of culture defines an aspect of culture.

We defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness", and cultivation by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . In this way we defined a specific way of looking at culture, and pointed to its specific aspect—exactly the one that we tended to ignore, while we looked at it through the narrow frame. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered; the difference between an apple eaten up and the seeds thrown away—and a tree full of apples each Fall—is made by relying on the experience of others who have undergone this process, and seen it work.

There is, however, an obvious difference between the two kinds of cultivation, the agricultural and cultural one: In this latter one, both 'seeds' and 'trees' are inside ourselves, and hence invisible. This has historically presented an insurmountable challenge, to communicate cultural insights. But to us this is also a most wonderful opportunity—because we have undertaken to develop communication consciously, by tailoring it to what needs to be communicated.

Béla H. Bánáthy opened "Guided Evolution of Society" by saying:

In the course of the evolutionary journey of our species, there have been three seminal events. The first occurred some seven million years ago, when our humanoid ancestors silently entered on the evolutionary scene. Their journey toward the second crucial event lasted more than six million years, when—as the greatest event of our evolutionary history—Homo sapiens sapiens, started the human revolution, the revolutionary process of cultural evolution. Today, we have arrived at the threshold of the third revolution: the revolution of conscious evolution, where it becomes our responsibility to enter into the evolutionary design space and guide the evolutionary journey of our species.

It seems only fitting that this "third revolution" will require that we adapt the way we use our language as well.


Addiction

Here too we want to emphasize the way of defining addiction. The traditional definitions would tend to identify certain activities such as gambling, or certain things such as opiates, as addictions. But selling addictions is a famously lucrative yet destructive line of business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies and create a variety of completely new addictions?

The evolution gave us senses and emotions to guide us to wholeness. The technology made it possible to deceive our senses—and create pleasurable things and activities that take us away from wholeness. They are addictions. The refined, industrial sugar—as the pleasurable substance extracted from a plant, which can then be added to almost anything to make it palatable—might serve as an explanatory template.

By defining addiction as a pattern, we made it possible to identify it as an aspect of otherwise useful activities and things. To make ourselves and our world whole, even subtle addiction will need to be taken care of.

From a large number of obvious or subtle addictions, we here mention only pseudoconsciousness defined as "addiction to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for wholeness. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the sensation of knowing—without telling us what we really need to know, in order to be or become whole.


Religion

In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the narrow frame:

It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.

If you too happen to be affected by the narrow frame in this way, it may be best to consider our way of handling concepts as 'recycling'—as giving old words new meaning, and hence restoring them to the kind of function they need to perform "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world we live in".

"Religion" is especially interesting to 'recycle' in this way, for two reasons. One of them is that religion in the traditional cultures served for cultivating "human quality". If you believe, as Richard Dawkins does, that religion served that function poorly, that's just another reason to take up the challenge of 'recycling' "religion" by implementing this function in a completely new way.

The second reason is the etymology of "religion"—as "re" + "ligare", which suggests that "religion" is "re-connection". We may think of religion as connecting each of us to our purpose, and all of us into a society.

Religion is the alternative to selfishness.

Human systems are naturally self-organizing. We have seen that when selfishness or self-centeredness is what binds us to our purpose and to each other—then the power structure is the result.

We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). We adapted Carl Jung's favorite keyword, and defined the archetype as whatever may be in our psychological makeup that may empower us to transcend selfishness. "Heroism", "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are obvious examples; and there are others.

Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... are what binds us to our purpose, and to each other.
Isn't that what "a great cultural revival" is all about?

But aren't we unduly misinterpreting "religion", when we divorce it from its institutions and beliefs, and turn it into a core element of culture?

"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is a biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process, while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And metaphorically—what accompanies every deep creative act. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as the "Warrior Pope". But he did exercise his piety—by making it possible to Michelangelo to complete his work. Julius, and Michelangelo</em>, both knew that it was the artist, and not the pope, that God was speaking through. And that it was the artist's work that would be remembered.

Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is a classic about this theme, which showed that across geographical regions and historical periods, human cultures created myths to cultivate this important archetype, and reflect the dynamics of such cultivation. The hero is the archetype of an inner transformation, to enable the larger communal transformation that is the holotopia's aim.

Here again it is worth observing the interplay between "human development" and power structure, which shaped both history and culture: No sooner did a man become a hero, by making the empowering connection with the archetype—than we put a sword into his hand and sent him to kill people for us. We portrey a hero with a sword! The reason is, of course, that the very existence of a traditional community depended on the existence of the people that would not sell out when the danger presents itself. But today's warfare being a strife of human-operated technologies, heroism is no longer in demand.

Ways to separate "human development" from power structure must now be found.



Books and publishing

Occasionally we publish books about of the above themes—to punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a dialog.

Shall we not recreate the book as well—along with all the rest? Yes and no. In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman—who founded "media ecology"— left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" than the contemporary "immersive" audio-visual media do; it gives us a chance to reflect.

We, however, embed the book exist in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our ten themes—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our collective mind digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop itself!

In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by collective creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.

Liberation

The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.

In a fractal-like way, this book reflects the holotopia as a whole. We are accustomed to think of "religion" as a firm or dogmatic belief in something, impervious to counter-evidence. The Liberation book turns this idea of religion inside out—so that religion is understood as liberation from not only rigidly held beliefs, but from rigidly held anything.

The age-old conflict, between science and religion, is resolved by the book by further evolving both science and religion.

Prototypes

Prototypes, as we have seen, are a way to federate information by weaving it directly into the fabric of everyday reality. A prototype can be literally anything.

In the Holotopia prototype, everything is a prototype. In that way we subject everything to knowledge-based evolution.

The events are prototypes we have not yet talked abou. They are multimedia and multidimensional prototypes—which include a variety of more specific prototypes. Events are used to 'punctuate the equilibrium'—to create a discontinuity in the ordinary flow of events, draw attention to a theme, create a transformative space, both physical and in media, engage people and make a difference.

In what follows we illustrate this idea by describing the holotopia's Earth Sharing pilot event, which took place in June of 2018 in Bergen, Norway.

Vibeke Jensen, the artist who created what we are about to describe, is careful to avoid interpreting the space, the objects and the interaction she creates. The idea is to use them as prompts, and allow new meaning to emerge through association and group interaction. The interpretation we are about to give is by us others. It is, however, only a possible interpretation.

B2018-Building.JPG

The physical space where the event took place was symbolic of the purpose of the event. The building used to be a bank in the old center of Bergen, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery, holotopia-style, into a transformative space.

B2018-Stairs.jpg

The space was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs too into a symbolic object. Going up, the inscription on the stairs reads "bottom up"; going down, it reads "top down". In this way the very first thing that meets the eye is the all-important message, which defines the polyscopy and the holoscope—namely that we can reach insights in those two ways.

Local-Global.jpg

The BottomUp - TopDown intervention is a tool for shifting positions. It suggests transcendence of fixed relations between top and bottom, and builds awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view (polyscopy), and moving in-between.

SafeSpace02.png

The mirror—the core symbol of holotopia transformation—is seen almost everywhere. In particular, a one-way mirror serves as the entrance into the space that used to be the vault of the bank. One enters the vault by literally stepping through a physical mirror. Instead of money and other physical treasures, the vault is a "safe space" for reflection. The inside of the vault was not illuminated, but one could see the world outside through the semi-transparent door, and reflect on it. From the speakers in the vault one could hear edited fragments from an earlier dialog—offered as information to build on and develop ideas further. There was a bag with seeds hanging in the vault.

Babel2.jpeg

We like to think of the objects that populated the space as furniture—and give that world a designed meaning. When one enters a room, the furniture in the room (a sofa, a couple of armchairs...) automatically invites a certain kind of interaction. Our furniture, however, was nothing like conventional furniture; it invites to recreate the interaction. And, of course, it offers certain prompts.