Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Socialized reality"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with " <!-- OLD <div class="row"> <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialized reality</h2></div> <div class="col-md-7"> <blockquote> At the core of the...")
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S</b></h2></center><br><br>
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Socialized reality</h1></div>
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>The Enlightenment replaced one foundation stone (faith in the tradition, represented by the Scriptures), by another (trust in reason, empowered by knowledge)—and "a great cultural revival" was the result. Are the conditions ripe for a similar change today?</p>
 +
<p>We will here be talking about "the core of our proposal"—about changing our very relationship with information.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a shaky foundation</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified. The very idea that what we see or experience or grasp by an "aha experience" <em>corresponds</em> to reality tends to be a product of illusion.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<p>Why base our pursuit of knowledge—an all-important human activity—on a criterion that cannot be verified; and which itself tends to be a product of illusion?</p>
 +
<p>To <em>federate</em> this point of view we provide two quotations. The first one is by Einstein and Infeld, from "The Evolution of Physics"; the second one is from Einstein's "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge". Both are presented [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here].
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<!--
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<!-- OLD
 
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
 +
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S</b></h2></center><br><br>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Socialized Reality</h1></div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>We have come to the core of our response to Peccei—<em>what is to be done</em>, to begin "a great cultural revival" here and now.</p>
 +
<p>The answer offered will be the same as the core of our proposal—to change the relationship we have with information.</p>
 +
<p>Instead of conceiving "truth" as "an objective picture of reality", and considering the purpose of information to be to provide us "an objective picture of reality", we'll propose to consider information as human-made, and to tailor the way we handle it to the various and sometimes vitally important purposes that need to be served.</p>
 +
<p>The key point here will be to <em>perceive</em> the very notion "reality" as an instrument of <em>socialization</em>.</p></blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>This is not to say that reality "really is" that. What we are offering is a <em>scope</em> and a <em>view</em>, or insight. A way in which the <em>wholeness</em> of our <em>culture</em>—of the 'vehicle' whose purpose is to take us to <em>wholeness</em>—is 'cracked'.</p>
 +
<h3><em>Socialization</em></h3>
 +
<p>From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many carrots and sticks, we are <em>socialized</em> to think and behave in a certain way. <em>Socialization</em> is really the way in whicy <em>cultures</em> function. </p>
 +
<p>The question, then, is—Who does the <em>socialization</em>? In what way? And for what ends?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>View</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The answer, the <em>view</em> we are offering, is to perceive <em>socialization</em> as largely the prerogative of the <em>power structure</em>.
 +
And to perceive <em>reification</em> as an instrument by which people are coerced to accept a certain societal <em>order of things</em> without questioning it. </p>
 +
<p>Further, we propose to perceive the academic tradition as an age-old effort to <em>liberate</em> ourselves from the <em>power structure</em> and the socialized "realities" it imposes—and to evolve further. Wasn't <em>that</em> the reason why Socrates, and Galilei, were tried?</p>
 +
<p>There's been a new event in this age-old development. An error, a bug in the program, has been discovered. The Enlightenment gave us the <em>homo sapiens</em> self-identity. It made us believe that "a normal human being" <em>sees</em> the "reality" as it really is. And that it is a human prerogative to know and to <em>understand</em> "reality". Our democracy and other institutions, our knowledge work, our ethical sensibilities, the way we handle <em>culture</em>—all this has been built on this error as foundation.</p>
 +
<p>We now own all the information needed to perceive this error; and means to correct it. And by doing that, to resume the evolution of knowledge; and of culture and society.</p>
 +
<p><em>The</em> core insight here is that by liberating ourselves from an age-old myth or a dogma, we can develop a foundation for working with knowledge that is at the same time perfectly robust and rigorous, creative beyond bounds <em>and</em> most importantly <em>accountable</em>. </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>We propose (a way) to abandon "reality" as foundation altogether. To liberate ourselves from the <em>power structure</em> and the "reality" it's created for us. And to create a pragmatic approach to knowledge, which will accelerate the evolution of <em>culture</em>—on a similar scale and rate as the science and the technology have been evolving.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Einstein</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Throughout our <em>prototypes</em>, Einstein represents "modern science" (if it were <em>federated</em>).</p> 
 +
 +
<h3>Closed watch argument</h3>
 +
<p>Explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be rationally claimed.</p>
 +
<p>Read it <em>here</em> (links will be provided).</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Reality as illusion</h3>
 +
<p>Einstein argues that "reality" has been a product of illusion—the "aristocratic illusion" that reason can know "reality", prevalent in philosophy, and the "plebeian illusion" that "reality" is what we perceive through our senses.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Epistemological credo</h3>
 +
<p>In the introductory pages of his "Autobiographical notes", where he offers a quick journey through modern physics as he experienced it, Einstein states his "epistemological credo". The <em>epistemology</em> we are proposing is roughly equivalent to it. Already the fact that Einstein states his "epistemological credo" explicitly (instead of assuming that it's "obvious", and hence remaining in the <em>paradigm</em> or "reality" we've been socialized in) is significant.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Galilei</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p> Galilei's claim that the Earth <em>is</em> moving was not a statement of how the things "really are", but a <em>scope</em>. As it is well known, we may place the frame of reference, or the coordinate system, in any way we like. The difference his <em>scope</em> made was, however, that it enabled rigorous, rational understanding of astrophysical phenomena; and ultimately the advent of "Newton's laws" and of science.</p>
 +
<p>As Piaget wrote, "the mind organizes the world, by organizing itself.</p>
 +
<p>Our situation is calling for another such step—where we'll create a way of looking at the world that will enable us to understand the <em>social</em> phenomena in a rigorous way, and to explore them in a way that 'works'.</p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Odin—Bourdieu—Damasio</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Bourdieu's "theory of practice" is a sociological theory of <em>socialization</em>. The story of Bourdieu in Algeria tells how Bourdieu became a sociologist, by observing how the instruments of power morphed from torture chambers, weapons and censorship—and became <em>symbolic</em>.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Damasio contributed a solid academic result to show that we are <em>not</em> rational decision makers; that an <em>embodied</em> pre-rational filter controls what we are rationally able to conceive of.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio's theory beautifully synergizes with Bourdieu's observations that etc. etc.</p>
 +
<p>Bourdieu still saw the issue of power as a kind of a zero sum game (where some are winners, and others are losers). The story of Odin the horse serves to highlight a different possibility—that we may be playing turf games, and creating <em>power structures</em> for no better reason than serving an atavistic, self-destructive part of our psyche...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Antonovsky</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Showed how important "sense of coherence is"—even for our health!</p>
 +
<p>The <em>power structure</em> capitalizes on this vital need of ours, by providing us <em>sense of coherence</em>; but at what cost!?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>In popular culture</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The Matrix is an example of <em>socialized reality</em>.</p>
 +
<p>The Reader is a more nuanced one.</p>
 +
<p>King Oedipus is an archetypal story, showing how <em>socialized reality</em> can make us do exactly the things we are trying to avoid.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>IVLA story</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>While our ethical and legal sensibilities are focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture, and our "human quality", are being shaped by the more subtle <em>implicit information</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em></p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Chomsky—Harari—Graeber—Bakan</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Here we have a Darwinian or <em>memetic</em> view of our culture's evolution. A <em>complete</em> explanation of <em>power structure</em> emergence, and our disempowerment.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Maturana—Piaget—Berger and Luckmann</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Studies of reality construction in biology of perception, psychology and sociology.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Nietzsche—Ehrlich—Giddens—Debord</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>How we lost the <em>personal</em> capability to connect the dots...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Pavlov—Chakhotin</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Politics (political propaganda) as <em>socialization</em>. What brought Hitler into power...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Freud—Bernays</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>For a long time Freud fought an uphill battle to convince the scientific community that we are not as rational as we may like to believe. His nephew turned his insights into good business. </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Without giving it a thought, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation on which our worldview, culture and social institutions have evolved.</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>We have come to the very crux of our proposal. We are about to zoom in on the relationship we have with information. And on the way in which truth and meaning are conceived of, and socially constructed in our society. </p>
 +
<p><em>That</em> changed during the Enlightenment; and triggered a comprehensive change. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We emphasize, once again, that the crux of our proposal is a relationship or an attitude. What we are offering is not "the solution", but a <em>process</em>, by which the solutions are continuously improved. If we might be perceived as proposing 'a better candle', or even 'the lightbulb'—our <em>real</em> proposal is a <em>praxis</em> by which information, and the way we handle it, can continue to evolve. </p>
 +
<p>Hence what we are about to say is offered as an initial <em>prototype</em>—whose purpose is to serve as an initial proof of concept; <em>and</em> to prime the process through which its continued improvement will be secured.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Truth and meaning today</h3>
 +
<p>Although our proposal does not depend on it, we begin with a brief sketch of the status quo, to give our proposal a context. </p>
 +
<p>"Truth", it seems to be taken for granted, means "correspondence with reality". When I write "worldviews", my word processor complains. Since there is only one world, and hence only one "reality", there can be only one ("true") worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to "reality".</p>
 +
<p>Meaning, it is assumed, is the test of truth. Something is "true" if it "makes sense", i.e. if it fits into the "reality puzzle". "This makes no sense" means "this is nonsense"; it means it <em>cannot</em> be true.</p>
 +
<p>The purpose of information, it is assumed, is to tell us "the truth"; to show us the reality as it truly is. If this is done right, the ("true") pieces of information will fit snuggly together, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle; and compose for us a coherent and clear "reality picture".</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Truth in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>
 +
<p>All truth in our proposal is <em>truth by convention</em>: "When I say <em>X</em>, I mean <em>Y</em>." Truth, understood in this way, is both incomparably more solid (a convention is incontrovertibly true), and incomparably more flexible (a written convention can easily be changed)—compared to the conception of truth we've just described. </p>
 +
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is completely independent of what's been called "reality". We offered it as a new 'Archimedean point', which can once again empower knowledge to 'move the world'. A clear understanding of this might require, however, a bit of reflection; and a <em>dialog</em>.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Meaning in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>
 +
<p>Meaning is, by convention, strictly "in the eyes of the beholder". <em>Information</em>, by convention, reflects not reality but human experience. And experience (we avoid the word "reality"), by convention, has no a priori structure. Rather, it is considered and treated as we may treat an ink blot in a Rorschach test—as something to which we <em>assign</em> meaning; by perceiving it in a certain way.</p>
 +
<p>We too make claims of the kind "here is how the things are"; not in "reality", however, but in experience. The meaning of such a claim, howeer, is that the offered <em>scope</em> fits the offered <em>view</em> to a <em>sufficient</em> degree to illicit the "aha feeling". The sensation of meaning is thereby transmitted from one mind to another—and that's all we want from it. The message is a certain kind of human experience—and that's what's been communicated. </p>
 +
<p>Hence a vast creative frontier opens up before our eyes—where we find ways (by taking due advantage of the vast powers of the new media, and by <em>federating</em> whatever we've learned from the psychology of cognition, from arts, the advertising...) to <em>improve</em> such communication.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Information in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>
 +
<p><em>Information</em> is, by convention, "a system within a system", which has a purpose—to fulfill a number of functions within the larger system (or systems). Or as we like to phrase this—its purpose is to make the larger system <em>whole</em>.</p>
 +
<p>"A piece of information" is not a piece in the "reality puzzle". Rather, it is, as Gregory Bateson phrased it, "a difference that makes a difference". Hence we can <em>create</em> what "a piece of information" might be like—to best fulfill new or neglected purposes. </p>
 +
<p>An example might be a piece of information that conveys the "aha experience" – namely that something can be seen and understood in a certain specific way. The piece of information may then have the <em>scope</em>–<em>view</em>–<em>federation</em> structure, where a way of looking at a phenomenon or issue called <em>scope</em> is offered—alongside with a <em>view</em> that may result from it, and a <em>federation</em> by which this view is first clearly communicated, then backed by data so that it may be verified, and finally given ways to make a difference, by eliciting suitable action. An example is, of course, what's been going on right here.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>The <em>views</em> thus created do not exclude one another, even when they appear to contradict one other. "Models are to be used, not to be believed." There are, by convention, a multiplicity of ways to perceive a theme of interest or situation. Any of them can be legitimate, if it follows from a justifiable way of looking; and it can be useful, if it tells us something we <em>need to</em> know. Since the purpose of <em>information</em> is to contribute to the <em>wholeness</em> of the system or systems in which it has a role, the chances are that a seemingly <em>discordant</em> view will be <em>more</em> useful than something that smoothly fits in.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small><center>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></center></small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The <em>holoscope</em> <em>ideogram</em> serves to explain how the <em>holoscope</em>, and <em>information</em>, are to be used: The cup is <em>whole</em> only if it is <em>whole</em> from all sides. It has a crack if <em>any</em> of the views show a crack. Hence the <em>holoscope</em> endeavors to illuminate <em>all</em> relevant angles of looking (but organizes and encloses those details in the <em>square</em>). And shares the final outcome (as the <em>circle</em>). This makes it effective and easy to both understand and verify its message (by using the provided <em>scopes</em> to look at a theme from all sides, as one would do while inspecting a hand-held cup, to see if it's cracked or whole).</p>
 +
<p>An example of a resulting "piece of information" is a <em>gestalt</em>—an interpretation of the nature of a situation as a whole. "The cup is cracked" is an example of a <em>gestalt</em>; another examples include "our house is on fire"; and the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. A <em>gestalt</em> points to a way in which a situation may need to be handled.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>View</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We can now offer (an initial version of) the <em>socialized reality</em> insight with the same caveat as before. This <em>view</em> is not offered as a new "reality picture", to replace the old one, but as a way of looking, to be considered in a <em>dialog</em>. What is being proposed is (once again) that <em>dialog</em>—through which this insight will be kept continuously evolving, and alive—and not any <em>fixed</em> view.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" cannot help us distinguish truth from falsehood</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The "correspondence with reality" is a truth criterion that cannot be tested in practice.</p>
 +
<p>Instead of guarding us from illusion, the idea of a fixed and "objectively" knowable "reality" <em>itself</em> tends to be a product of illusion.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" is a construction</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" is a result of <em>socialization</em></h3>
 +
<p>The fixed <em>grasp</em> of the human mind ... a <em>gestalt</em>... is most naturally used to fix a certain <em>social</em> order of things...</p>
 +
 +
<h3>We got it all wrong</h3>
 +
<p>And finally, and most importantly, "reality" is not what this is all about. Not at all. And it has never been that!</p>
 +
<p>"Reality" is just a contraption, that the <em>traditional</em> culture created to <em>socialize</em> its members into a shared "reality". Either you see "the reality"; <em>or</em> you are not "normal". Well, everyone wants to be normal. It is intrinsically human to be part of it. And so we comply.</p>
 +
<p>Part of it is to socialize the people to accept a certain <em>social</em> order of things as just "reality". This is part is the one that's relatively better known, and we can come back to it.</p>
 +
<p>The other part is that the traditional <em>socialization</em> was really how the culture operated! How the cultural heritage was coded, and transmitted. On the surface, it's all about "believing in Jesus". But underneath that surface are the ethical messages: that one should be unselfish; even sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others. (Isn't that what Jesus did, by dying on the cross? And what the Almighty also did, by sacrificing his son?) Underneath the surface is an entire emotional ecology (respect, awe, piety, charity...); and ways to nurture it (architecture, frescos, music, ritual...). And it is similar in all walks of life, including what happens in people's homes and families, of course.</p>
 +
<p>So when we understood that "they got it all wrong"; that God <em>did not</em> create the world in six days etc., the result was an enormous empowerment of human reason. We understood that the women can't fly on brooms (because that would violate some well-established "laws of physics"). A myriad superstitions and prejudices were eradicated, and we made a giant leap in both understanding the world, and in freedom to creatively change it.</p>
 +
<p>But we also threw out the baby with the bathwater—we threw out not only the cultural heritage, but also <em>the very mechanisms</em> by which culture is transmitted.</p>
 +
<p>Well, this is of course true only up to a point. <em>Socialization</em> remained the mechanism, as it has always been. But being unaware of its function, and missing the opportunity to consciously take it into our own hands, <em>socialization</em> only changed hands. We are no longer <em>socialized</em> to be pious believers and the king's loyal subjects. We are socialized to be mindless consumers—and to cast our votes against our best interests.</p>
 +
<p>We got it all wrong <em>also</em> when we empowered the reason in the way we did (and here Galilei's, and also Socrates' persecutors may have a point; and we may need to federate <em>them</em> as well, however non-modern this may seem...): We developed a culture of arrogance, where we don't seek information, or knowledge, because <em>we believe that we already know</em>. Since our eyes, aided with our reason, can simply "see the reality" as it is, <em>we do not need information</em> to tell us what values we should nourish; what ethical options we should prefer; what music, architecture, lifestyle-habits we should preserve or further develop.</p>
 +
<p>We developed a "culture" of <em>convenience</em>!</p>
 +
<p>Even our very <em>reason</em> is only riding on a back seat—helping the driver (our likes and dislikes) with the technical task of steering the course he has already chosen.</p>
 +
<p>This is how "human development" lost its bearings!</p>
 +
<p>This is why we must "find a way to change course"!</p>
 +
<p>The Holotopia project undertakes to reconstruct the mechanisms by which cultural heritage and culture evolve. And by which <em>we too</em> evolve culturally.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our point</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><p>Let us now put the academic tradition, and the <em>academia</em> as its institutionalization, on this map.</p> 
 +
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
 +
We look at the attitude we have towards information. And at the ideas we have about the meaning and purpose of information, and also about truth and reality, and about meaning itself.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>We look, more concretely, on the assumption that
 +
<ul>
 +
<li> "truth" means "correspondence with reality"</li>
 +
<li> "truth", understood in this way, is what distinguishes "good" information</li>
 +
<li>"a normal human being" sees "the truth" that is, sees "the reality as it is"—and is therefore perfectly capable of understanding and representing his "interests"</li> </ul>
 +
This assumption permeates not only our ideas about knowledge, and about ourselves—but also our understanding and  handling of our society's most fundamental issues, such as freedom, justice, power and democracy. </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>View</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h3>
 +
<p>From the 20th century science and philosophy we have learned that
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Correspondence of our "true" ideas are true because they depict the reality "objectively"or "as it truly is", is (or more precisely <em>can</em> and demonstrably needs to be consider as) a <em>myth</em> (a shared belief that cannot be verified, which serves certain social purposes)</li>
 +
<li>The way we see the world, or "reality", is constructed through a complex and profoundly interesting interplay between of our cognitive organs and our culture</li>
 +
<li>What we consider "reality" is (or more precisely can and demonstrably needs to be considered as) a product of our <em>socialization</em>.</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>There is, of course, nothing wrong with <em>socialization</em>; that is how the culture has always functioned, and always will. Already in the crib, and long before our rational faculties have developed to the point where we are capable of understanding what goes on, and being critical about it, our socialization is well under way. What makes all the difference is whether our rational faculties—of us <em>as a culture</em>—are developed to the point where <em>socialization</em> is considered and treated as <em>human-made</em>—and hence subjected to careful scrutiny, and made an instrument of conscious evolution.</p>
 +
<p>The alternative is alarming: Socialization may become an instrument of renegade power; so that the enormous power that information and knowledge have is used <em>not</em> to liberate us, but to enslave us. That socialization is used to <em>hinder</em> us from evolving further—as culture; and as humans.</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Academia</em> must take the lead</h3>
 +
<p>As part of <em>holotopia</em>'s <em>scope</em>, we have defined <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". The point here is to see that the academic tradition has been an alternative to unconscious, power-driven <em>socialization</em> <em>since its inception</em>; the stories of Socrates and Galilei illustrate that unequivocally!</p>
 +
<p>During the Enlightenment, this process—of liberating us from renegade socialization—took a gigantic leap forward. But it was not at all completed!</p>
 +
<p>While we liberated ourselves from the kings and the clergy; but having failed to take our <em>socialization</em> into our own hands, our socialization has only changed hands—as new <em>power structures</em> replaced the old ones.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>The situation we are in</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
We (the <em>academia</em>) must see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>!
 +
</blockquote>
 +
The evolution of knowledge, or more specifically the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, which the <em>academia</em> is now in charge of, has brought us to a whole new situation.</p>
 +
<p>Having been <em>socialized</em> to compete and produce, we are too busy to even see this new situation clearly. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
Metaphorically, we say that the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has brought us in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Self-reflection</li>
 +
<li>End of (the assumption, or the pretense of) "objectivity"</li>
 +
<li>Beginning of <em>accountability</em>—by seeing ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we see that we are part of the world, and responsible for it.</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The academic tradition, and the social role we've acquired, as <em>academia</em>, demands that we build a larger version of this <em>mirror</em> and offer it to contemporary people and society—along the lines we've been drafting here. Having only our <em>socialized reality</em> as a frame of reference, what we do, and what we've become, appears to us as just "normal". We must now see ourselves, and what we do, in a more solid frame.</p>
 +
<p>And when we do that, the collective walk <em>through the mirror</em> will most naturally follow</p>
 +
<p>And so the <em>academia</em> must now guide our society <em>through the mirror</em>—just as Moses (according to that other tradition) guided the oppressed over the Red Sea. No miracle is, however, needed now; only a consistent application of the information we own.</p>
 +
 +
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small><center>The Mirror <em>idogram</em></center></small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We must go <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em></h3>
 +
<p>We must take the consequences of the knowledge we own—and resume our evolution. Just as the contemporary <em>academia</em>'s founding fathers did, in Galilei's time.</p>
 +
<p>Or to in the language of our metaphor, <em>academia</em> must guide us, the people, through the <em>mirror</em>. And into a <em>new</em> academic and social reality on its other side; which are now ready to be explored and developed. </p>
 +
<p><em>Holotopia</em> is a <em>prototype</em> of a social and cultural reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
<p><em>Holoscope</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em> of the corresponding <em>academic</em> reality. And also as the next step—the one that <em>enables</em> us to walk through the <em>mirror</em>.</p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>A <em>myth</em> is a popular belief that cannot be verified—but serves certain social and cultural roles.</p>
 +
<p>Two quotations of Einstein, repeated in several places already, including Federation through Images on this website, are sufficient to make this point:
 +
* The closed watch metaphor explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be verified
 +
* The quotations about the two illusions confirms that "correspondence with reality" is (according to 'modern science') a product of illusion
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The point here is to see that what we consider <em>the</em> reality is constructed—by our perception organs, our psyche and our society.</p>
 +
<p>A brief summary begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" construction in cognitive biology</h3>
 +
<p>To 'see ourselves'—how (we saw that) "reality" is constructed—it is sufficient to <em>federate</em> Maturana (as cognitive biologist), </p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" construction in psychology</h3>
 +
<p>Piaget (as cognitive psychologist) and </p>
 +
 +
<h3>"Reality" construction in sociology</h3>
 +
<p>Berger and Luckmann (as sociologists), to see how those insights were made, and some of their consequences.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Odin – Bourdieu – Damasio </h3>
 +
<p>The nature of socialization illustrated by this <em>thread</em></p>
 +
<p>TBA </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Pierre Bourdieu</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Antonio Damasio</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Political consequences of <em>socialized reality</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Ivan Pavlov</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Sergei Chakhotin</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Murray Edelman</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Text
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Symbolic action</h3>
 +
<p>We propose this pair of (roughly) antonyms: <em>symbolic</em> and <em>systemic</em> action.</p>
 +
<p>Having been socialized to think and act within the confines of the existing systems ("inside the box"), we  act out our concerns and responsibilities in a <em>symbolic</em> way: We organize a conference; publish an article; occupy Wall Street...</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Cultural consequences of <em>socialized reality</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Sigmund Freud</h3>
 +
<p>Fought a heavy battle to convince his contemporaries that we are <em>not</em> the rational animal we believe we are.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Edward Louis Bernays</h3>
 +
<p>Freud's nephew, turned Freud's ideas into a "scientific" approach to culture creation—for the benefits of the counterculture...</p>
 +
<p>Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations". (Wikipedia)</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Implicit information</em></h3>
 +
<p>IVLA story. Ideogram. While we are focusing on <em>explicit</em> information, our culture is dominated by and created through <em>implicit information</em>. </p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialization</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
When we think of the machines as being the <em>power structure</em>, the metaphor works rather accurately. We live in a constructed reality—while serving as power sources, living batteries, for machines. The metaphor is complete—reality is constructed, we have no freedom at all—and the world in an abysmal condition, without us being aware of that. </p>
 +
<p>Even the fact that periodically there is a revolution, "the One" comes and restarts the matrix... </p>
 +
<p>This puts us into an interesting situation—<em>can we ever</em> liberate ourselves from the <em>matrix</em> completely?</p>
 +
<p>Of course, that's exactly what this part of the Holotopia project (liberation from <em>socialized reality</em>) is about.</p>
 +
 +
 +
<h3>Animal Farm</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
The animals throw out the humans, but the pigs take over and begin behaving as the humans did. A pattern repeated by our revolutions. The point is to see the <em>pattern</em> in our evolution—we tend to turn our social organization, <em>and</em> our shared "reality" (they are really two sides of the same coin), into a turf...
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Socializing elephants</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
The elephant can't move his leg. This is a metaphor for socializing humans, of course.
 +
</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holoscope and Holotopia</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>They are, of course, the <em>prototypes</em> of an approach to knowledge that liberates us; and a social order that results. We shall here, however, show how we may evolve beyond the <em>socialized reality</em> (or metaphorically, 'step through the <em>mirror</em>'), with the help of Holoscope's specific technical solutions.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>When we say, for instance, "Culture is...", one expects, instantly, that what is being told is what culture "really is". How can we <em>ever</em> overcome this problem?</p>
 +
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em></p>
 +
<p>This has the additional advantage of giving us explicit definitions of things (instead of taking things for granted, because we all "know" what they are..</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>It's defined <em>by convention</em></p>
 +
<p>Triply secure: (1 - 3)</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Prototype</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Resolves the <em>symbolic action</em> problem. Also the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. Enables us to <em>bootstrap</em>. </p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>A cognitive and ethical stance—roughly equivalent to the "objective observer" etiquette in science. </p>
 +
<p>Has been part of <em>academia</em> since its inception—but David Bohm gave it a new meaning. A profound topic, truly worth studying.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The pitch</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>All those candles</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
Without giving it a thought, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth has served as <em>the</em> foundation on which our culture has developed.</p>
 +
<small><p>
 +
The fact that the <em>reality myth</em> sneaked through our rational checks and balances can hardly be surprising. When I type "worldviews", my word processor complains; since there is only one world, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to reality. The <em>reality myth</em> is hard-coded in our language; it permeates our culture.
 +
</p></small>
 +
<p>Looking at Galilei's time and situation, we wonder why it was so difficult for those people back then to see those simple facts—that the Earth is just one of the planets in the Solar system... and that the human mind <em>does</em> have the capacity to understand the world. But by doing that, we fail to recognize the <em>real</em> gift that the story of Galilei has in store for us—the <em>insight</em> into the human condition, whereby it is recognized that we humans can be <em>socialized</em> to believe in almost anything!</p>
 +
<p>Hence instead of being caught up in a battle that was waged and won centuries ago, we must ask whether we too have our <em>socialized reality</em>, which we are now called upon to overgrow, and overcome.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The point</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>The miracle of the mirror</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>academia</em> now has the prerogative, and the obligation (imposed on it by the nature of the academic tradition, and by its social role of the keeper of the keys to our culture's 'cellar' where its foundations can be seen and accessed) to guide our society 'through the <em>mirror</em>'. A feat not unlike the miracle that Moses performed, by guiding the oppressed over Sinai. And a feat that is perfectly feasible—according to <em>today</em>'s values and ideas.</p>
 +
<p>A feat whose liberating consequences extend all the way to the horizon, and the chances are also well beyond.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Scope</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
We have come to the very heart of our matter—our culture's invisible <em>foundations</em>. Our analysis of those foundations is in two parts; we here take up the values, which determine what we consider worth preserving, creating, knowing and acting on. Related to the <em>narrow frame</em> insight we take up the language, the method and other tools which decide what can and can not be built, preserved and considered as "culture".
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Recall that we are developing an analogy with Galilei's time and conditions, in response to Aurelio Peccei's diagnoses and recommendations. There can be no doubt that what was going on in Galilei's time was exactly the kind of change that Peccei's calls to action were pointing to. Galilei stands here in an iconic role—representing for us the idea that the reason <em>can</em> be empowered to challenge the conventional wisdom, and the time-honored truths written in the Scripture. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 +
<p>
 +
We are about to see not only a positive answer to that question—but also that this answer follows logically from the information we already own. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
In addition to <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em>, we define and use here another pair of <em>keywords</em>, <em>epistemology</em> and <em>socialization</em>. They will enable us to talk about our theme (how we know that something is "true" or "good" etc.). One might say that the <em>tradition</em> evolves and functions by <em>socialization</em>; and that a post-<em>traditional</em> culture must rely on <em>epistemology</em>. That would be a useful simplification—but an oversimplification none the less.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
So let us rather recognize that <em>socialization</em> is and has always been the way in which the human cultures operate. Already in the cradle, and long before our capacity to reflect about those matters has grown, we adopt from our parents patterns of speech and behavior. At school, through innumerably many carrots and sticks, we learn to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". It is best to understand a culture as we understand an ecosystem—where everything depends on everything else; and whose <em>wholeness</em> can be disrupted by human action.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
Notice that <em>tradition</em> is our ideal <em>keyword</em>. A <em>culture</em> is <em>by definition</em> capable of producing <em>wholeness</em> through spontaneous evolution, by trial and error and the survival of the fittest. The question is whether <em>we</em> are still capable of doing that, in the post-<em>traditional</em> culture we've created.</p>
 +
<small>
 +
<p>Facing now <em>the</em> perennial creative challenge—to undo the effects of our socialization, we may feel sympathy toward Galilei, Darwin and other iconic figures of the scientific tradition. They risked their reputation, and sometimes their very lives, acting as the informed reason demanded—while not only their socialized others, but also their socialized <em>selves</em> were telling them that they were wrong!</p>
 +
</small>
 +
<p>
 +
The meaning of <em>epistemology</em> may best be explained by looking at the academic tradition through the stories of the two main ions we here chose to represent it, Socrates and Galilei. A closer look will that both were instances of the empowerment of reason to disobey the <em>socialization</em>; and create a new—free and evolving, yet more solid—way to knowledge. Is the contemporary <em>academia</em> still capable of continuing this tradition, by acting accordingly when the circumstances demand that?</p>
 +
<p>Was the Enlightenment's rebellion against the tradition, which still continues today, a disruption of nature-like or paradise-like <em>wholeness</em>? </p>
 +
<p>Or was it a rebellion against a human order of things where people were <em>socialized</em> to obey the kings and the clergy, which kept the evolution in check?</p>
 +
<p>Our point is that it was <em>both</em>. Or more precisely—that to see what has happened to us, and what we need to do now, we need to <em>see</em> our culture's evolution that resulted in the Englightenment in those two ways.</p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Myths and Errors</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>"Truth" means "correspondence with reality"</h3>
 +
<p>First of all that there <em>is</em> such a thing; and second that it is knowable, and provable.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Information must show us "the reality"</h3>
 +
<p>The purpose of information, and the value of information, is to be decided on one criterion alone—whether it shows us "the reality" in an "objectively true" way or not. That this is what distinguishes "real" or "good" information, from nonsense and deception.</p>
 +
<p>A closely related error is to ignore <em>implicit information</em> (in academia, legislature, ethics...), and focus solely on information that explicitly <em>claims</em> something.</p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>View</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>
 +
The evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has brought us into this situation; in front of the metaphorical <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
<p>This metaphor has several connotations:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Seeing ourselves; from a situation where we believed (had every reason to believe, or it appeared so) that what we see (with our eyes, our reason, and the refined instruments of science) is the reality, we have evolved to see <em>how</em> we <em>construct</em> what we see; seeing the <em>limits</em> of our seeing, and knowing</li>
 +
<li>Seeing ourselves in the world; in a human world that is in a completely new situation, and has completely new needs, than when during the Enlightenment and the Scientific and Industrial Revolution, when our present foundations took shape</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
Our situation demands that we, first of all, self-reflect. And then find a way to continue further not by <em>avoiding</em> the <em>mirror</em>, but by (metaphorically, of course) going through it.</p>
 +
<p>The substance of our KF proposal, as already noted, is a complete <em>prototype</em> of an academic reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. What we are talking about here is how to 'go through'.
 +
</p> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>The Mirror <em>idogram</em></small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
The <em>academia</em> has the prerogative to guide us through the <em>mirror</em>. (Assuming that Peccei was right), <em>academia</em> holds the key to our future.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
By adopting the rational foundation that the Enlightenment left us, we became able to know, collectively, that women can't fly on broomsticks. Innumerably many superstitions and prejudices were dispelled. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
But we have also thrown out the baby with the bathwater. We have <em>no</em> foundation on which we can preserve the traditional heritage. And <em>no</em> foundation for reconstituting the myriad functions of a culture, and hence the <em>wholeness</em> that the <em>traditional culture</em> (we assume) represented.</p>
 +
<p>Consequently, we have abandoned the production of culture to counterculture; to advertisers, political propaganda, superficial interests... <em>We</em> are now molded by those interests. What they need is not "human development"; they mold us to be sheepish, selfish and obedient.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
Four courses of action follow as rather obvious, yet necessary, from the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em>.
 +
</p>
 +
<h3><em>Truth by convention</em></h3>
 +
<p>A new 'Archimedean point', to replace old formulas such as Descartes' "<em>cogito</em>", and Galilei's "<em>Eppur si muove</em>". We need it to once again give knowledge the power to 'move the world'.</p>
 +
<small> <p>
 +
We did not invent <em>truth convention</em>; our only innovation was to turn <em>itself</em> into a convention. But that makes <em>all</em> the difference—by giving us a completely solid new foundation to build on, independent of "reality". We can then define an <em>epistemology</em> explicitly—not as a statement about reality, but as a convention. Our <em>epistemology</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; it has provisions that allow it to evolve further.</p> </small>
 +
<h3><em>Design epistemology</em></h3>
 +
<p>This new <em>epistemology</em> is roughly what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>, the bus with candle headlights is saying: Information (and the way we handle it) is a piece in a larger whole; and it must be treated accordingly.</p>
 +
<small><p>
 +
The <em>design epistemology</em> is, of course, stated as a convention. Other conventions, for other purposes, can be made, by using this approach.</p> </small>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Information</em> is "recorded experience</h3>
 +
<p>According to this convention, <em>information</em>, reflects human experience, not "reality". </p>
 +
<p><em>Anything</em> that records experience is (or can be considered as) <em>information</em>. A chair is <em>information</em> because it embodies the experience about sitting, and chair making. This definition includes, rituals, myths, customs, values and so many other elements of the tradition as potentially containing valuable <em>information</em></p>
 +
<small> <p>We recognize it as our challenge to <em>federate</em> the <em>information</em> contained therein.</p> </small>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Knowledge federation</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>prototype</em> we proposed is of an 'evolutionary organ', which the <em>academia</em> may use to <em>federate</em> information into systemic change, in culture and beyond. </p>
 +
<small> <p> The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is of course an example.</p> </small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Plan</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
Three insights will here be <em>federated</em>:
 +
* "correspondence with reality" is a <em>myth</em>
 +
* "reality" is constructed—by our cognitive organs; and our society
 +
* "reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em>
 +
</p>
 +
<small><p>These three insights constitute a radical departure from the positivist frame of mind, which tends to mark education.</p> </small>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>It is sufficient to quote einstein</h3> 
 +
<p>A <em>myth</em> is a popular belief that cannot be verified—but serves certain social and cultural roles.</p>
 +
<p>Two quotations of Einstein, repeated in several places already, including Federation through Images on this website, are sufficient to make this point:
 +
* The closed watch metaphor explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be verified
 +
* The quotations about the two illusions confirms that "correspondence with reality" is (according to 'modern science') a product of illusion
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
Einstein's "epistemological credo" is precisely what we turned into a convention, while creating the <em>design epistemology</em>. We of course also added the purpose. </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is constructed</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>It was described by Piaget, Maturana and Berger and Luckmann, along so many others; read from [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is <em>socialized</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This development—how exactly we learned, painstakingly,  that we are not those "objective observers" we believed we were (an assumption based on which <em>so much</em> of our world has been developed)—is so central to the Holotopia project, that we here take time to point to some of its milestones.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Bowing to the king</h3>
 +
<p>A story illustrating subtle yet pervasive workings of <em>socialization</em></p>
 +
 +
<h3>Socrates – Galilei</h3>
 +
<p>The key point here is Piaget's "the reason organizes the world by organizing itself"</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>Pavlov – Chakhotin</h3>
 +
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) can serve as a parable for <em>socialization</em></p>
 +
<p>After working with Pavlov in his laboratory, Chakhotin participated in 1932 German elections against Hitler. Understood that Hitler was conditioning or <em>socializing</em> the German people. Wrote "Le viole des foules..." (see the comments,  link TBA). </p>
 +
<p>Chakhotin practiced, and advocated, to use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> information to counteract the <em>socialization</em> attempts by political bad guys (see the image on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>Murray Edelman</h3>
 +
<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power)—because (field research showed) the voters are unfamiliar with the candidates' proposed policies, the incumbents don't tend to fulfill their electoral promises and so on. Edelman contributed an interesting addition: It's not that the elections don't serve a purpose; it's just that this purpose is different from what's believed. The purpose is <em>symbolic</em> (they serve to legitimize the governments and the policies, by making people <em>feel</em> they were asked etc.)</p>
 +
<p>Edelman, as a political science researcher, contributed a quite thorough study of the "symbolic uses of politics".</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Edelman.jpg]]
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Freud – Bernays</h3>
 +
<p>Freud, famously, fought and won a battle against the prevailing belief in the pure rationality of the human animal, by showing the power of the unconscious. His American nephew, Edward Bernays, saw how Freud's research can be adapted to be used for commercial purposes.</p>
 +
<p>Honored by Life as "one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century", and as "the father of public relations", Bernays gave <em>socialization</em> a scientific foundation—as his titles Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928), Public Relations (1945), The Engineering of Consent (1955) might illustrate. "Citing works of writers such as Gustave Le Bon, Wilfred Trotter, Walter Lippmann, and his own double uncle Sigmund Freud, he described the masses as irrational and subject to herd instinct—and outlined how skilled practitioners could use crowd psychology and psychoanalysis to control them in desirable ways." (Wikipedia) </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Berger and Luckmann</h3>
 +
 +
<p>Their 1966 "Social Construction of Reality" is a sociology classic. What interests us here is, however, their observation that social reality constructions tend to be turned into "universal theories"—and used to legitimize the political and economic status quo. </p>
 +
<p>The reality of the Scripture, and the king's role as God's earthly representative, are familiar examples from Galilei's time.</p>
 +
<p>But can you think of a more contemporary one?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>Bourdieu – Damasio</h3>
 +
<p>Bourdieu left us a <em>complete</em> theory of <em>socialization</em>. We honor him as the <em>icon</em> of <em>socialized reality</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<p>Damasio contributed an essential piece in the puzzle—a scientific explanation, from the laboratory of a cognitive neurologist, of the primacy that embodied <em>socialization</em> has over rational thought. His title "Descartes' Error" brings home the main point—Descartes, and the Enlightenment, got it all wrong; we are <em>not</em> rational decision makers!</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">
 +
[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h3>
 +
 +
<!--
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: The Socialized Reality insight</h1></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The Enlightenment liberated our ancestors from an unreserved faith in the Scriptures, and empowered them to use their reason to <em>understand</em> their world. It was a revolutionary change of the way in which truth and meaning were created in our societies that made all other revolutions possible. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 +
<p>Once again we look at what tends to remain hidden: the <em>foundations</em> on which knowledge is evaluated and developed, which serve as foundation to everything we create, and everything we <em>are</em>. But these foundations are, as it were, under the ground. They are the invisible value judgement that underlies everything we believe, and everything we do.</p>
 +
<p><small>We may here go back to our main iconic image, of Galilei in house arrest, and see if we can project it into our own time and situation. It's tempting to think that those people back then were simply stupid: <em>How could they</em> not see that the Earth moves, revolves around the Sun... It is, however, far more interesting and instructive to use this reference to understand the power of <em>socialization</em>; and to ask: Could it be similar in our time?</small> </p>
 +
<p><small>So the core of our challenge here is to use suitable <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> and 'see ourselves in the mirror'. See how <em>our own</em> way of establishing facts might have also been arbitrarily constructed through socialization—without <em>us</em> seeing that.</small> </p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Without thinking, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth, incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the myth that the purpose of knowledge is to show us "the reality" as it truly is.</p>
 +
<p>The insight that we are <em>constructing</em> rather than "discovering" is now so well documented and so widely accepted, that we may consider it the state of the art in science and philosophy. But that's only one half of the story.</p>
 +
<p>The other half is that the reality construction has been the tool of choice of traditional <em>socialization</em>—which has been the leading source of renegade power.</p>
 +
<p>We can choose between the following two ways of rendering the situation that resulted.</p>
 +
[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
 +
<small>The visible problems are caused by the failing foundations</small>
 +
<p>One way is to talk about <em>holotopia</em> as doing to knowledge and to our "reality" what architecture did to house construction: We can now <em>consciously</em> found knowledge (instead of building without foundation, on whatever terrain we happen to be)</p>
 +
[[File:Magical Mirror.jpg]]
 +
<small>The evolution of knowledge has brought us in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</small>
 +
<p>The other way is to talk about the metaphorical <em>mirror</em>. The hidden thing here is ourselves. We see ourselves—that we are <em>in</em> the world, not hovering above it and looking at it "objectively". This contains two insights: the ending of the myth of "objectivity" <em>and</em> the beginning of accountability.
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Corollary 1</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>"Reality" is a turf! This is one of the core points that Bourdieu left us. It's coded in the formula he keeps repeating, something like "the <em>habitus</em> is a structured structure and structuring structure ... The point is that once you structure the people's reality to be so and so (king is God's ordained ruler, and he owns it all)  – then this structure structures the reality for the next king to come. He doesn't need to do it again. </p>
 +
<p>The Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] comes in here to point to the (potential or actual) absurdity of the turf strife. There may be NO "real" gains whatsoever in victories... only symbolic ones...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Corollary 2</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Academic tradition has brought us to the <em>mirror</em></p>
 +
<p>Socrates started the tradition of [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] – by instructing people to question the roots of their beliefs. Especially when they are power based. Galilei and others improved the method. The point here is that we need to do this again. Not be busy, but come back to basic questions of meaning and purpose. Stop and self-reflect.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Federation</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
* Albert Einstein*
 +
<p><small>As you might be aware, Einstein in our entire <em>prototype</em> plays the role of an <em>icon</em> of "modern science". What is modern science telling us about <em>epistemology</em>? Here we let Einstein highlight two simple things. See the details in Federation through Stories.</small> </p>
 +
<p><small>The first is that we <em>cannot</em> rationally claim that our models <em>correspond</em> to "the real thing". That's the meaning of Einstein close watch metaphor. </small> </p>
 +
<p><small>The second is that the belief that "model equals reality" tends to be a product of illusion. The quotation here is Einstein's "During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection. Etc."</small> </p>
 +
 +
* Pierre Bourdieu
 +
 +
<small>Bourdieu did not travel to Algeria as a sociologist. In Algeria he <em>became</em> a sociologist—after having an insight; a formative experience. What he saw was exactly how the power morphed from Galilei and Inquisition style persuasion (during the liberation war with France)—to become <em>subtle</em> persuasion though worldview, media, body-to-body transmission (during liberated Algeria's "modernization"). Bourdieu left us a thorough description of the relevant social processes. Let us here, however, only highlight his keyword <em>doxa</em>—which Weber (as one of the founding fathers of sociology) adopted from Aristotle himself (which here appears in the role of the Academia's foremost progenitor of science itself). The insight could not be more basic, and we don't need all those <em>giants</em> to see it; just observe that different cultures have their own "realities", which they consider as <em>doxa</em> that is, as <em>the</em> reality. <em>Of course</em> they are a product of socialization, not of "objective" observation of reality. But can we see that this is true also about <em>our</em> culture's <em>doxa</em>?</small>
 +
 +
* Antonio Damasio
 +
 +
<small>Damasio's role here is to help us see how <em>socialization</em> (Bourdieu-style) can serve as a fake, surrogate <em>epistemology</em>. And more. The big point here—coded already in the title of his book "Descartes' Error"—is that we are not rational choice makers. Our pre-conscious, embodied cognitive filter does the pre-choosing for us. And this thing can, and is 'programmed'—(Bourdieu-style), through <em>socialization</em>. A bit of reflection may be needed here, to see what it all means. But the basic big point is that "the reality" is not what it used to be...</small>
 +
 +
* Sergei Chakhotin
 +
 +
<small> <p> Participating, in Germany, in the 1932 campaign against Hitler, after having collaborated with Ivan Pavlov in his St. Petersburg laboratory. Pavlov, incidentally, we might consider to be one of the founders of scientific psychology. Anyhow—Chakhotin observed that Hitler was doing to German people (roughly) what Pavlov was doing to his dogs. He understood that the political business as usual was going to lose against the "Dark Side" politics—unless... Wrote the book... The report is in the blog, and I'll point to it from here.</p> </small>
 +
 +
* Thread Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio
 +
 +
<small> <p> Bourdieu: symbolic power. Damasio: It's a pseudo-epistemology (pseudo-joke...). Odin: It's a meaningless game.</p> </small>
 +
 +
* Lida Cochran and Visual Literacy
 +
 +
<small>In (?) 1969, a group of four people got together and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. Many years later... See [http://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Misc/Lida-letter.pdf this]...  </small>
 +
 +
& Berger and Luckmann
 +
 +
<small>"Reality" is socially constructed. But the main point here is that "universal theories" serve to legitimize and hold in power the political status quo. A report is in my blog, in "Science and Religion". </small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Action</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p><em>Dialog</em> </p>
 +
<p><small>The first and obvious step is to see our <em>doxas</em> and <em>gestalts</em> for what they are—instead of clinging on to them because they are "the reality". But that means adopting the attitude of the <em>dialog</em>, doesn't it?</small> </p>
 +
 +
<p><em>Truth by convention</em></p>
 +
<p><small>OK—but what about truth, then? What shall we believe in? We use TBC to create <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>. The <em>scope</em> defined by convention is like a pure forms in geometry. We "look through" it at experience. It is "true" to the extent that it reveals something relevant in experience, which would otherwise remain ignored.</small> </p>
 +
 +
<p><em>Design epistemology</em></p>
 +
<p><small>Shall we then just go on creating those <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>? What's the point? <em>Design epistemology</em> means that information is considered as part of a system, or multiple systems. Our goal is to create <em>information</em> that makes those systems more <em>whole</em>. <em>Information</em> here is, of course, not just text, but <em>anything</em> that embodies experience. The <em>design epistemology</em> implies a priority structure on information, which is of course entirely different than what we inherited from the situation where we are completing a "reality puzzle".</small></p>
 +
 +
<p><em>Holoscope</em></p>
 +
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]
 +
<p><small> It may now be already clear how the <em>holoscope</em> works, in principle: We <em>deliberately</em> create <em>scopes</em> (by using truth by convention). They show us the <em>whole</em> from different sides. Is the cup cracked or whole? If we can discover a <em>scope</em> (way of looking) which reveals a crack—then it <em>is</em> cracked, isn't it?</small></p>
 +
 +
<p><em>Knowledge federation</em></p>
 +
<p><small> But what do we do with all those <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>? Well of course—we <em>federate</em> them! I know this is still rather sketchy—but you may already be able to see how a <em>paradigm</em> naturally emerges from a handful of very basic, and (by now) very well established principles.</small></p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
* Back to [[Holotopia]]
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
<!--
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: Socialized Reality</h1></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Truth</li>
 +
<li>Reality</li>
 +
</li>Free choice</li>
 +
<li>Rational choice</li>
 +
<li>Epistemology</li>
 +
<li>Information, knowledge</li>
 +
<li>Pursuit of knowledge</li>
 +
<li>Social creation of truth and meaning</li> 
 +
</ul>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
 +
<p>
 +
This <em>ideogram</em> is only a placeholder. The real thing should be a house with failing foundation image – but we can talk about that.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>We look at the fundamental assumptions which we use to create truth and meaning. Which are, needless to say, the foundations of all we call "culture"; and also more...</p>
 +
<p>The point here is to see the visible, mushrooming... cracks in the walls as just <em>natural consequences</em> of a faulty foundation. And the possibility to do to knowledge work what architecture did to house construction...</p> 
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<center><b>Galilei in house arrest</b></center>
 +
<p>This iconic image of the Enlightenment... And his <em>eppur si muove</em>... Let us zoom in on this pivotal moment of our civilization's history. See what it really meant. And what resulted.</p>
 +
<p>Notice first of all that the real issue was not whether the Earth was moving or not. That was just a technicality. Galilei was held in house arrest because of the dangerous <em>meme</em> he was carrying—that when the reason contradicted the Scripture, it might still be legitimate to give the reason the benefit of our doubt.</p>
 +
<p>Notice, furthermore, that there is no scientific or logical reason why the Sun, and not the Earth, must be seen as relatively immovable. Movement is, as we know <em>relative</em>; we might just as well put the Earth into the center of our coordinate system. The reason why we ultimately didn't is that by putting the Sun into the center and letting Earth be one of the planets moving around it—we <em>empower the reason</em> to not only <em>grasp</em> what's going on in a far simple way, but also to reduce "the natural philosophy" to "mathematical principles"! </p>
 +
<p>What resulted was a <em>foundation for truth and meaning</em>—where the "aha" we experience when all the pieces fit snuggly together, and we understand how something works, how certain causes lead to certain effects, is automatically considered as a sure sign that we have seen "the reality"</p>
 +
 +
<center><b>The story of reality</b></center>
 +
<p>In the course of our <em>modernization</em>, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the <em>myth</em> that the meaning of "the truth" is "correspondence with reality". And that the purpose of information, and of knowledge, is to help us know "the truth"—i.e. to show us "the reality" as it "truly is". </p>
 +
<p>Why do we call this a <em>myth</em>? Because (as Einstein and Infeld demonstrated by their closed watch argument) it is not only impossible to demonstrate for any of our models that it <em>corresponds</em> to the real thing—but we cannot even conceive of such a possibility; we cannot even imagine what this comparison might be like, what it might mean!</p>
 +
<p> By calling it a <em>myth</em> we are <em>not</em> implying that it has no value. On the contrary! Myths, combined with <em>socialization</em> to accept them as "the reality", was <em>how the traditional culture functioned</em>, how it reproduced itself and evolved. The myth of eternal punishment, for instance, clearly served a role—to keep people reasonably ethical etc. <em>And</em> it also kept them obedient to the <em>power structure</em>. </p>
 +
<p>And so, by adopting this "mother of all myths", we were prepared to "throw the baby with the bathwater"—as soon as completely <em>new</em> "realities" came around. </p>
 +
<p>When we look back at the Middle Ages, we see only those silly myths, and how they supported the <em>power structure</em> or the order of things of the day. When, however, se understand the reality story as just another myth—we become ready to unravel our <em>contemporary</em> myths (the market myth, the science myth...); and se how <em>they</em> made us subservient to the <em>contemporary</em> power structure; and kept us from evolving.</p>
 +
 +
<center><b>Kings and madmen</b></center>
 +
 +
<p>The difference between a "real king", and a madman "imagining" and "pretending" to be a king, is that in the case of the former, everyone including himself have been successfully <em>socialized</em> to accept him as that.</p>
 +
<p>A "real king" would be treated with highest honors and respect; a deluded imposter would be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. And yet throughout history, a single "real kings" might have caused <em>incomparably</em> more evil, deaths, suffering, injustice... than all "dangerous madmen" combined!</p>
 +
 +
 +
<center><b>Bourdieu in Algeria</b></center>
 +
<p>Bourdieu did not travel to Algeria as a sociologist; in Algeria he <em>became</em> a sociologist—by acquiring a core insight, which marked his subsequent career. The insight is how (what we call) <em>socialization</em> organizes the practical life in a society.</p>
 +
<p>More concretely, in Algeria Bourdieu had a chance to witness how the interrogation, the prison and the torture chamber (as instruments of power that were passed on all the way from Galilei's time), which were ubiquitous 
 +
 +
 +
 +
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 +
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 +
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 +
 +
 +
<!--
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The point here is threefold:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>what we called "reality" is really our own that is, our <em>culture</em>'s creation</li>
 +
<li> "The correspondence with reality" of our ideas or models is <em>not</em> – however it may seem – something that can be rationally verified</li>
 +
<li>"The correspondence with reality" is – or needs to be seen as – a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>; something which appears and works as a real [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] (valuation of knowledge based on knowledge of knowledge) – and yet keeps us bound to myths, prejudices, the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]... </li>
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Reversals</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Truth: It <em>can</em> be fixed – by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]].</li>
 +
<li>Reality – Without thinking, from the traditional culture we have overtaken a myth incomparably more dangerous and disruptive than the myth of creation...</li>
 +
<li>Information, knowledge – become implicit... become <em>aspects</em> of things... </li>
 +
</li>Free choice, rational choice – the assumptions that served as foundation for some of our core institutions have proven to be false. We are <em>not</em> rational choice makers. We may <em>become</em> that – when people are properly informed, and taught proper use of knowledge. Educated to rely on knowledge of knowledge, not on appearances. How far we are from that blessed state of affaires! Just look at all the advertising...</li> 
 +
<li>Epistemology – It becomes [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]. The purpose of depicting reality as it really is falls down. The purpose where knowledge is a core component of our core systems rises and shines.</li> 
 +
<li>Pursuit of knowledge – knowledge is pursued through a <em>dialog</em>, not discussion; we keep our [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]s fluid and loose...</li>
 +
<li>Social creation of truth and meaning acquires a whole new meaning...</li> 
 +
</ul>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Bourdieu in Algeria. He saw two processes.</p>
 +
<p>The first was the "modernization" of Algeria. As the war ended, and independence resulted – a completely <em>new</em> set of dependencies emerged. The result was the same. But in a much more subtle way!</p>
 +
<p>The second was the destruction of culture. The Kabyle people ...</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4></h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>This of course goes quite deep – into <em>personal</em> foundation of knowing. Instead of holding on to our beliefs, we keep them fluid. We remain creative... We co-create...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Federation, not puzzle solving</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Multiple versions are possible, and also necessary. Keeping them relatively – yet not obligatorily – consistent and coherent is what we are calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], isn't it?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Design epistemology</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Design epistemology – information as systemic component</p>
 +
<p>Information is not only, or even primarily, the facts about... The lion's share is <em>implicit</em>...</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>[[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]</p>
 +
<p>[[implicit information|<em>implicit information</em>]] </p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The Knowledge Federation [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is a complete model of an academic reality on the other side – created to help the self-reflection, and the transition to the new paradigm.</p>
 +
<p>Key point dialog</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
 +
* Back to [[five insights]].
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
<!--
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: The Power Structure insight</h1></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>By developing the technology, our ancestors <em>vastly</em> augmented the effectiveness and efficiency of human work. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 +
[[File:System.jpeg]]
 +
<p>We look at what remained ignored: the "systems in which we live and work" (which we'll here call simply <em>systems</em>). Think of those <em>systems</em>  as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology. Their purpose is to take everyone's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. </p>
 +
<p> If in spite the technology we are still as busy as were—should we not see if our <em>systems</em> might be wasting our time?</p>
 +
<p> And if the effect of our best efforts turns out to be problems rather than solutions—should we not check whether those <em>systems</em> might be causing us problems?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
Our systems tend to be conceived without any rational or conscious plan whatsoever. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
The systems tend to evolve as 'cancer'.</p>
 +
<p>We contemplated paraphrasing Bill Clinton's 1992 successful presidential campaign slogan, "The economy, stupid!", and calling this insight "The systems, stupid!". "The economy" (i.e. the economic growth) is not the solution to our problems—the economy <em>is</em> our problem... "The systems, stupid!" points to a winning political agenda in an <em>informed</em> society. Its consequences will be sweeping. </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
The Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller <em>thread</em>.</p>
 +
<small> See a very brief version [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ here] (where Ferguson was not mentioned), and a bit longer persion on pages 4 and 5 [http://knowledgefederation.net/Articles/GCGforEAD10.pdf here]. </small>
 +
<p>Zygmunt Bauman</p>
 +
[[File:Bauman-msg.jpeg]]
 +
<small><p>Bauman used a strong metaphor, the concentration camp...</p> </small>
 +
<p>Norbert Wiener</p>
 +
<small> <p>The first axiom of cybernetics is that structure drives behavior. And that to be viable or "sustainable", a system must have some minimal requisite structure, notably a functioning feedback-and-control (...). In his 1948 Cybernetcs Wiener explained why we <em>did not</em> have that. And why the "free competition" would not replace it. But also Wiener failed to notice and unravel the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>!</p> </small>
 +
<p>Erich Jantsch</p>
 +
<small> <p>Jantsch contributed two further insights: That the "control" required for the humanity's continued existence (the solution of the "problematique") had to involve the capability to continuously update "the systems in which we live and work"; and that the key task of implementing that function would have to be done by the university institution. Jantsch coined the concept "systemic innovation", and undertook to <em>bootstrap</em> the corresponding theory, and practice. Hence we chose him to be the icon of <em>power structure</em> insight.</p> </small> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Action</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
Systemic innovation—making the systems whole
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
* Back to [[Holotopia]]
 +
 +
 +
XXXX
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">

Revision as of 10:03, 7 May 2020

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



Socialized reality

The Enlightenment replaced one foundation stone (faith in the tradition, represented by the Scriptures), by another (trust in reason, empowered by knowledge)—and "a great cultural revival" was the result. Are the conditions ripe for a similar change today?

We will here be talking about "the core of our proposal"—about changing our very relationship with information.

Stories

"Reality" is a shaky foundation

"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified. The very idea that what we see or experience or grasp by an "aha experience" corresponds to reality tends to be a product of illusion.

Why base our pursuit of knowledge—an all-important human activity—on a criterion that cannot be verified; and which itself tends to be a product of illusion?

To federate this point of view we provide two quotations. The first one is by Einstein and Infeld, from "The Evolution of Physics"; the second one is from Einstein's "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge". Both are presented here.

</div> </div>

Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=Holotopia:Socialized_reality&oldid=4835"