Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Socialized reality"

Latest revision as of 19:44, 17 November 2020

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

The Enlightenment was before all a change of epistemology. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed knowledge of knowledge. On that as foundation, a completely new worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to comprehensive change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?

From the traditional culture we have adopted a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.

"Reality" is a myth

How to begin a cultural revival

We have come to the pivotal point in our story.

We talk about "Galilei in house arrest" to illustrate a central point—When our idea of "reality" changes, everything else changes as a consequence and most naturally. We asked, rhetorically, "Could a similar advent be in store for us today". We shall here see an affirmative answer to this question.

The theme is central; we shall take it as concisely as we are able, without sacrificing the rigor and the necessary details.

Language, truth and reality

We (as society, and as academia) have made a grave but understandable and forgivable error. This error now needs to be corrected.

This error can easily be understood when we consider how much the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is ingrained in our 'cultural DNA'; and even in our very language. When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. Since there is only one world, there can be only one worldview—the one that corresponds to that world. The word "worldview" doesn't have a plural.

A consequence is another error—the belief that a "normal" person sees the "reality" as it truly is. That "good", "true" or "scientific" information is the information that shows us a piece of that reality, so that we may ultimately know "reality" completely.

We are about to see that this myth is what holds us back from engaging in "a great cultural revival", which is overdue. And that relevant academic insights, which update our knowledge of knowledge, demand that we abandon this myth.

It will follow that "a great cultural revival" will follow naturally from the knowledge we own—as soon as we do our academic job right.

"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified

In this very concise prototype sketch of the holotopia and the holoscope, Einstein plays the role of an icon of modern science. Our goal being to create, propose and put to use a federation procedure that can take us all the way to "a great cultural revival", we say "let's assume that Einstein did the necessary federation" (which we as culture eventually need to be able to do) and we let him be the spokesman for "modern science".

In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our reasoning, or perception, correspond to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [here].

Since our goal is not to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.

Our culture is founded on a myth

We define myth as a popularly relied on but unverified belief, which has certain social and psychological purposes.

Our task being to find a solid foundation stone for developing a culture, or in other words a criterion for distinguishing "truth" (that is, "good" information or knowledge) from illusion, deception and conceptional mayhem, we must ask—Why use a criterion ("correspondence with reality") that cannot be verified? And which is itself a product of illusion?

"Reality" is an instrument of socialization

"Reality" is a construction

Researchers showed that what we call "reality" is constructed by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.

We illustrate this point by a few references.

Evidence from natural sciences

In the 19th century it was natural to consider the human mind as a camera obscura—a perfect recording device, which reflects the outside world in an objective sense. But in the 20th century the researchers were able to looked into the supposed camera. They reached a completely different conclusion. We represented them by Humberto Maturana and Jean Piaget, see our commentary that begins here.

Evidence from sociology

Here Pierre Bourdieu's keyword doxa will provide us the clue we need.

Bourdieu adopted it from Max Weber, but its usage dates all the way back to Plato (which suggests that doxa is profoundly connected with the academic tradition—a point we shall come back to later). the academia's history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this keyword to point to the experience—that the societal order of things we happen to live in constitutes the only possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which ours is believed to be the only "right" one. Doxa ignores even the possibility of alternatives.

Another point of reference is Berger and Luckmann's classic "Social Construction of Reality", where a theory of the process of social reality construction is contributed (see it commented here). Their keyword "universal theory" deserves our special attention—as an explanation how "reality" has served, historically, to legitimize the existing power relationships, and social order.

Socialization in theory

Federation vs. socialization

We have improvised a theory of socialization—and offer it now as a stepping stone for building the holotopia. In our opus, and notably in The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a prelude to holotopia (described here), the mechanism of socialization is represented by a tread comprising three vignettes. We named them by their chief protagonists: Odin the Horse, Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio (see a summary here). We here highlight the main points.

Odin the Horse

The longer story illustrates the turf behavior of Icelandic horses living in nature, by describing a concrete event. Imagine two horses in spectacular and manly body-to-body duel, running side by side with their long hairs and hairy tails flagging in the wind, Odin the Horse pushing New Horse toward the river. And away from his herd of mares.

Bourdieu and Symbolic Power

We'll need two points from Bourdieu's theory of "symbolic power", the first of which is represented by the card above: Symbolic power tends to be invisible and ignored by everyone concerned!

A story illustration, which we have not told in sufficient detail yet, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison during the war, to symbolic power following the independence.

To see what this all means, imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—and who promptly finds out that his entire way of being, which back home served him well, here makes him all but dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking seem unappealing even to the young women who moved from his home village—who saw something else in the movies and the restaurants.

Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education.

The second point we need from Bourdieu is highlighted by the cover of his book "Language & Symbolic Power", shown on the right.

The point is that not only are relationships of empowerment and disempowerment deeply coded in our language or more generally "culture"—but that this language is "symbolic", or pre-rational. And indeed, on the cover of the book we see a turf. In Odin the Horse story the turf was a physical piece of land that Odin was defending. But in a culture, the structure of the 'turf' is not only symbolic, but also far more complex—as much as our culture is more complex than the culture of the horses. Yet in spite of that, the similarity is striking—when we observe that the power relationships are neatly organized in space, in a manner that corresponds to their organization in the idea world; in our social "reality".

The king enters the room, and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature and by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.

What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? Both consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that everyone else has been socialized to consider him as that.

While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.

From Bourdieu's theory we'll highlight only two more of his keywords: habitus and field (which he also called "game"). The habitus is a set of embodied predispositions, manners of thinking and behaving. The king has his own habitus, and so does the page. Think of the habitus as a cultural "role", analogous to a role in a theatre play. But you must also see it as a power position. Think of the field as a "culture" of a certain social group (a king's court, an academic discipline...), where through innumerably many carrots and sticks everyone gets "put into his place". On the symbolic 'turf'.

Damasio and "Descartes' Error"

Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with an all-important insight experimentally proven by cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.

Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and what options we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And embodied.

Damasio, in other words, explained why we don't get up wondering whether we should take off our pajamas and run out into the street naked (although this may be completely normal in some completely different culture). Our embodied "reality" controls the very content of our rational mind!

Please do read the brief but centrally important anecdotal illustration of Damasio's all-important scientific insight, which we provided here.

Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the physiological mechanism by which the body-to-body socialization to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a doxa—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality".

Our key point

We have all been socialized to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where all of us are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others.

Odin the Horse does not "really" need all "his" mares. On the contrary. The reason why the farmer decided to introduce New Horse was that Odin was getting too old. So another social "reality" may be incomparably better for everyone. But Odin does not see any of that. In his primitive horse mind, he only sees that New Horse is intruding into "his" turf, threatening to privatize some of "his" mares, and Odin was going to stop that at all cost.

But we the people have a whole other side of our nature; pointed to, coincidentally, by Odin's very name.

Beyond this, there are realms of opportunities for developing culture, and improving our condition. This is what holotopia is about. But let's come back to this theme in a moment.

Socialization in practice

How we lost culture

Socialization, however, has two sides. On the one side is "symbolic power". And on the other—culture!

Did Moses really return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, carved in stone by God himself?

For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to the modern mind, the fact that this would violate certain "laws of physics" takes precedence.

When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.

An example are principles to live by; guidance to conduct our daily affaires. But not the only, or even the main one.

Think about entering a cathedral—an immersive experience combining a variety of media, including architecture, painting, music, ritual... The point was not to know how really the world originated, but to socialize people to think and feel and behave in a certain way. To be in a certain way.

Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled; we have left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. Now, we must provide for ourselves.

And so we got it all wrong. Whether it was "really" God who wrote those tablets is beside the point. The "reality" has always only been a medium; the socialization has always been the message! And the reproduction and creation of culture.

The real question, then, is not "Does God exist?" What matters is "Who is now creating our culture for us? And in what way?"

Freud and Bernays

While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not at all those "rational decision makers" they believed we are, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that exploiting this characteristics of our psyche is—good business! Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce".

The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (available here) are highly recommended.

Pavlov and Chakhotin

Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) are another metaphor for socialization.

Having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was not arguing his points rationally (which would indeed be hard to imagine); that he was socializing the German people to accept his ideology and agenda. Chakhotin advocated, and practiced in those elections, the use non-factual or implicit techniques to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler).

Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique". It contains both a testimony, and a theory of disempowerment and dehumanization of masses of people by political socialization; read our comments here.

One of Chakhotin's ideograms

Edelman and symbolic action

Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (such as the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power). The field research showed that the voters are unfamiliar with proposed policies, that the incumbents did not fulfill electoral promises etc. This does not mean that the elections don't have a purpose, Edelman observed; it's just that their purpose is different than what is commonly believed. Their purpose is, in Edelman's parlance, symbolic—to legitimize the governments and policies; by making people feel they were asked.

Have you been wondering what makes one qualified to be the president of the United States?

Edelman had a career-long mission. To help us understand the world we live in, he contributed a thorough study of "symbolic uses of politics" and "politics as symbolic action".

Socialized reality in popular culture

My American Uncle

As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a new paradigm art project.

In that way, the movie federates a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:

The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups.

We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it.

Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change.

The Matrix

The movie The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for socialized reality—where the "machines" (alias power structures) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, using them as a power source. This excerpt requires no comments.

Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

Oedipus Rex

King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.

A parable for our civilization?

The mirror points to a leverage point

Mirror ideogram

As a visual shorthand, the Mirror ideogram points to two fundamental changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And the academia's situation that resulted from them.

The end of innocence

We have learned that we are not "objective observers".

It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the mirror, we see that it has along been just us looking at the world, and creating representations of it.

The beginning of accountability

We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.

The mirror symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the mirror, we see ourselves in the world. Hence we see ourselves as part of the world; and as accountable for our role in it.

We must pause and self-reflect

As a symbol for the situation, which the academia's evolution so far has brought us to, the mirror demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic dialog in front of the mirror is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.

Enormous gains will be made

The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical next step—through the mirror!

Our proposal—the way we have federated the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—may in this context be understood as the invitation to the academia to guide our society 'through the mirror', and to a completely new symbolic and actual reality.

We have coined the keywords holoscope and holotopia, to point to the academic and the socio-cultural reality 'on the other side'.

Academia

Our proposal is addressed to "the academia", where the academia is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By pointing to Socrates and Galilei as this tradition's progenitors and iconic representatives, we show that resisting degenerate socialization, even by risking one's own life, has been what the academic tradition was all about since its inception.

As the dialogues of Socrates, as Plato recorded them, might suggest—the academia has achieved that purpose by using knowledge of knowledge or epistemology to liberate us from false or socialization-induced beliefs.

Dialog

Our invitation is to a dialog; and we said that the dialog streamlines the "cultural revival", by introducing, and being a remedial way to communicate (which liberates us from "symbolic power", and the corresponding habits of communication).

The dialog is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the holoscope order of things. And it is also more—a strategy to re-create our collective mind, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.

By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the dialog is way to restore academia's original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's praxis of "dialogue", it acquires an agile contemporary meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined here). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, necessary for shifting the paradigm, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as the antidote to socialization and power structure.

In addition—the dialog, as we are using this keyword, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By designing for the dialog, we rule out certain practices that the power structure has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into spectacles—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...

Homo ludens

The point of this definition is that we are not (only) the homo sapiens as we have been told. We have also another side—which, as we have just seen, must not be ignored and neglected.

The homo ludens is the socialized human. He is the product of power structure. The homo ludens does not seek knowledge. He does not even care about the facts. He adjusts to "the field". He sees what (as he knows) people in power, or in his "field", want to hear. He looks for, and does, "what works".

It is interesting to observe that the homo ludens has a surrogate epistemology, and even an ontology, which leads him to entirely different worldviews and conclusion than the epistemology that the homo sapiens has. For instance, both homo ludens and homo sapiens see himself as the epitome of human evolution, and the other as about to go extinct. The homo sapiens looks at the data; the homo ludens just looks around.

It is not difficult to see that the homo ludens behavior was exactly what The Club of Rome was up against. In the five-minute trailer for The Last Call documentary (which follows the authors of The Limits to Growth through their ensuing struggles to have themselves heard) has two such episodes on record (see them here and here).

Truth by convention

Reification of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else as the existing or traditional implementations of those abstract ideas binds us to the traditional order of things, and effectively inhibits a cultural revival or paradigm change.

Truth by convention is the alternative. It is the notion of truth that is entirely independent of "reality", and of traditional or socialized concepts and ideas. It is offered as a new foundation stone, to consistently replace reification. And as 'Archimedean point', necessary for empowering information and knowledge to once again make a difference.

In the context provided by the mirror metaphor, the truth by convention is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the mirror.

Three points need to be understood about truth by convention:

it makes information completely independent of "reality" and tradition
it provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible foundation
it provides a completely flexible foundation for creating truth and meaning (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)

Design epistemology

Design epistemology is an epistemology defined by convention. This epistemology is exactly what the Modernity ideogram is suggesting—information, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. And evaluated and treated accordingly.

Design epistemology is what orients knowledge work on the other side of the mirror.

An introduction with a link to the article is provided here.

Implicit information

Information is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can know that the Earth is roughly a sphere.

The point of this definition is also that any form of recorded of experience is information. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an aspect of) information—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So information can be explicit (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or implicit (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.).

By including implicit information, we both

give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding implicit information, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of federation
preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it socializes us in ways that suit the power structure.

Symbolic action

We adopted the keyword symbolic action pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been socialized to consider the existing order of things (or the power structure) as the reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a symbolic way (which makes us feel we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...

The creation of prototypes—a goal that naturally follows from the design epistemology—is the alternative. We federate information all the way into systemic prototypes, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".

Power structure

We can now briefly revisit the definition of power structure we gave with the Power Structure insight, by adding what's been told here.

The Power Structure ideogram, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of wholeness (represented by the stethoscope).

Throughout history revolutions resulted when people understood the issues of power and justice in a new way. We are witnessing a spectacular and unexpected turning point in this history: That we are the enemy! And that we are socialized to be our enemy!

The proposed action—to learn to collaborate, and to take our socialization into our own hands and approach it creatively—is naturally seen as our next evolutionary step.

Power Structure ideogram

Religion

This keyword points to an answer to the next obvious question: Is competition really part of "human nature"? Or do we have another side in our "nature", which can be elevated through culture, as deliberate socialization?

We adapted the definition provided by Martin Lings, roughly as follows. Notice that this definition, just as our other definitions, is purely by convention; and that it relies on nothing but observations, or "phenomenology".

Imagine the kind of wheel one sees in Western films. The points where the spokes meet the rim are labeled by (what we call) archetypes: "Truth", "Justice", "Beauty" and so on. In this definition, archetypes are, simply, what has historically helped people overcome ego-centeredness, and serve the humanity, and its cultural evolution.

What's Going on?

A polyscopic book, answering the title question by the subtitle "A Cultural Revival".

We use the new information to illuminate the foundations. It's the foundations that are failing. Fixing won't do; we need to rebuild, from the foundations up.

Key Point Dialog

As mentioned, the initial step we are proposing for holotopia development is a series of dialogs. Part of the story is to go back to the original values, and to Aristotle... Another part is to build upon the important work of David Bohm and others, as we have just seen—and by doing that to begin recreating our collective mind, as we have just seen. To prepare for this task, we have done a series of <prototypes> and experiments under the shared name Key Point Dialog.

A key point is, simply, "a way to change course"; it is an insight that can lead to a direction change in a community. When capitalized, the Key Point is the Big key point–a one that can lead to a global shift. And so the challenge that motivates this prototype is to structure the communication within a community so that its members jointly see the key point.

David Bohm's original idea, his "dialogue", is a slow-moving event. It is designed not to have a purpose; the participants check all their agendas at the entrance door, and do their very best to let the "dialogue" take its own spontaneous course.

What we did was to, metaphorically speaking, turn Bohm's "dialogue" into a high-energy cyclotron.

Long story short, the key point dialog is composed of a community's opinion leaders (the people who are qualified, trusted, by their role accountable... to set directions). They are physically placed into a context, which symbolically places them into the context of our times and conditions (by federating relevant insights). In the center of the circle a piece of evidence is placed, which challenges the current direction and requires a new one. An 'amplifier' (implemented by suitable media technology) is also present in space and online, so that if and when the circle begins to 'resonate' with new tones, as 'stricken' by the evidence provided in the context, they are spread into the community, at which point the dialog becomes properly public.

Several runs and improvements of the key point dialog were implemented over the years, of which we name the following:

Municipality key point dialogs in Norway (KommuneWiki project) was developed to add the capability to reassess the dominant (power structure-induced) values and lifestyle patterns to the conventional social-democratic repertoire of Norwegian municipalities (which bear the suggestive name "kommune" or communes)
The Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008 had all the offline elements described above, and the explicit goal to address Aurelio Peccei's core proposition, which motivates holotopia
The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 dialog in Belgrade added also the 'amplifier' or media infrastructure—represented by video streaming, photography, TV, and a public dialog organized on DebateGraph.

See the summary here.

Polyscopic Modeling definition

This is a methodology definition prototype: Instead of us basing our work with knowledge on myths, we create a written convention, a methodology—which can be continuously updated, when the axiom it embodies no longer suit; or, simply, to create an approach to knowledge that serves a different purpose.

This methodology is, of course, a foundation for an approach to knowledge that might suit the order of things 'on the other side of the mirror'. A copy of the article where Polyscopic Modeling methodology is defined is provided here.

Visual Literacy Definition

This prototype illustrates several ideas and tools of considerable strategic and tactical potential. The main one is to replace reification and tradition (or metaphorically 'candles') as determining the direction, and using a federated principle (rule of thumb, overarching insight). And hence "restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge"—and to the people creating them of course.

The real story may need to be told, but meanwhile, here are some preliminary sketches. So think about a whole community of researchers doing work on a theme that just couldn't be more needed by the society. And yet being virtually of no real use to the society. The underlying problem being all those inherited fundamental and institutional incongruences, which we've been talking about all along.

The story

In 1969, four visionary researchers saw the need, and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. What exactly did they see? Three decades later, on the IVLA's annual conference which was that year in Iowa, a panel is organized, like so many times before, on the theme of visual literacy definition. What is really "visual literacy"? Ten respected members of the community proposed ten different definitions, and at that point the event ran out of time and everyone went home.

Dino was jet lagged and woke up early, and so while rolling from side to side in bed he saw how the whole issue could be handled in a very different way. In the first morning parallel session he was, by serendipity, alone in the audience with Lyda Cochran, the only surviving IVLA co-founder, and so he told her the idea. Lyda liked it, and organized a special panel for Dino to propose this idea to the IVLA elders. To the next year's conference, Dino contributed an article where the ideas were elaborated. Lyda was not present, but Dino showed her the article beforehand, and her response was enthusiastic. A result was that Dino was invited into the IVLA board, obviously on Lyda's recommendation. We mention this not to brag, but to illustrate how a completely different approach to definition, along the lines introduced here, could entirely change the impact of a community of researchers; and of the key point they have in store for the society.

A definition that points to the purpose

The proposed definition focuses on the key point, not on "factual truth" (determining what exactly "is" and "is not" visual literacy). The point is made, in the course of presentation, that while such definitions tend to be elaborate, they also tend to miss the point—which shows both to the community, and to the world beyond, why they should care.

The purpose is communicated by using the techniques outlined with the narrow frame insight. Hence it can be exported into the outer world or federated. We used the following ideogram, see it commented here.

In the above picture the implicit information meets the explicit information in a direct duel. Who wins? Since this poster is a cigarette advertising, the answer is obvious.

The purpose is all-important, but easily missed

While the official culture is focused on explicit messages and rational discourse, our popular culture is being dominated, and created, by implicit information—the imagery, which we have not yet learned to rationally decode, and counteract.

So becoming "literate" about implicit information is, as we saw above, our society's vital need. A need that is well beyond the interest in visual communication as such. And so it has turned out that this need is most easily misunderstood by the IVLA researchers themselves—who, biased by the usual "factual" orientation of academic research, "objectivity", article publication etc.—all too easily miss the point that there's something essential that needs to be communicated to the society. A completely different institutional organization and way of working are necessary for fulfilling that purpose. We are once again witnessing an instance of a phenomenon we see repeated again and again, in the examples we are presenting.

An instance of systemic innovation in traditional academia

The story we've just told is intended to serve (also) as a parable—pointing to the kind of difference that the proposed approach (defining a field by convention, which points to a purpose) can bring to the traditional academia.

Another similar example is our definition of "design", which was proposed to the design community, and received a similarly enthusiastic reception (the article, comments and evidence of enthusiastic reception are provided here).

@@ 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>
+<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Five insights|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"><h2>Let us <em>federate</em> our culture's <em>foundations</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Werner Kollath, Erich Jantsch, Douglas Engelbart, Werner Heisenberg and other 20th century's thinkers who saw elements of an emerging <em>paradigm</em> made their appeals to [[academia|<em>academia</em>]]. With astonishing consistency, they were ignored.</p>
-<p>It is the <em>academia</em>'s privileged social role to decide what ideas will be explored taught at universities, and given citizenship rights. The standards for right knowledge, which the <em>academia</em> upholds in our society, decide what education, public informing, and general information consumption will be like.</p>
-<p>What <em>are</em> those standards? What are they based on?</p>
-<p>Nobody knows!</p>
-<p>The <em>foundations</em> on which truth and meaning are created in our society, and which determine our cultural <em>praxis</em>, are composed of vague notions (such as that science provides an "objectively true picture of reality") and historical prejudices. </p>
 <blockquote>
-<p>During the 20th century a wealth of insights have been reached in the sciences, humanities and philosophy, which challenged or disproved the age-old beliefs based on which our culture's <em>foundations</em> have evolved. </p>
+The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. On that as foundation, a completely <em>new</em> worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to <em>comprehensive</em> change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?
-<p><em>They too</em> remained ignored!</p>
+</blockquote>
-</blockquote>
+<p>From the traditional culture we have adopted a [[muth|<em>myth</em>]] incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This <em>myth</em> now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.</p>
-<p>
-If you interpret what follows as a proposal for new <em>foundations</em>, you will be right in the old <em>paradigm</em>, but mistaken in the new one we are proposing.
+</div></div>
-</p>
-<p>
-The point here is to initiate a social process by which our <em>foundations</em> are continuously improved. Think of it as the reversal of the trials of Galilei and Socrates. This central issue is no longer decided "behind the closed door"; it is made a subject of a public process, akin to the traditional "trial by jury". </p>
-<p>Our destination is not to only observe and describe a certain state of affaires—but to initiate a social process by which this state of affaires will be reversed. Hence everything that is said here is just <em>prototypes</em>—created to ignite this process.</p>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a myth</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How to begin a <em>cultural revival</em></h3>
-<blockquote>
+<p>We have come to the pivotal point in our story.</p>
-From the traditional culture, we've inherited a [[myth|<em>myth</em>]] incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This <em>myth</em> serves as the foundation stone on which the edifice of our culture is being erected.
+<p>We talk about "Galilei in house arrest" to illustrate a central point—When our idea of "reality" changes, everything else changes as a consequence and most naturally. We asked, rhetorically, "Could a similar advent be in store for us today". We shall here see an affirmative answer  to this question. </p>
-</blockquote>
+<p>The theme is central; we shall take it as concisely as we are able, without sacrificing the rigor and the necessary details.</p>
+<h3>Language, truth and reality</h3>
+<p>We (as society, and as <em>academia</em>) have made a grave but understandable and forgivable error. This error now needs to be corrected.</p>
+<p>This error can easily be understood when we consider how much the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is ingrained in our 'cultural DNA'; and even in our very language. When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. Since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural.</p>
+<p>A consequence is another error—the belief that a "normal" person sees the "reality" as it truly is. That "good", "true" or "scientific" information is the information that shows us a piece of that reality, so that we may ultimately know "reality" completely. </p>
+<p>We are about to see that this <em>myth</em> is what holds us back from engaging in "a great cultural revival", which is overdue. And that relevant academic insights, which update our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, <em>demand</em> that we abandon this <em>myth</em>.</p>
+<p>It will follow that "a great cultural revival" will follow naturally from the knowledge we own—as soon as we do our <em>academic</em> job right.</p>
 <h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>
+<p>In this very concise <em>prototype</em> sketch of the <em>holotopia</em> and the <em>holoscope</em>, Einstein plays the role of an <em>icon</em> of modern science. Our goal being to create, propose and put to use a <em>federation</em> procedure that can take us all the way to "a great cultural revival", we say "let's assume that Einstein did the necessary <em>federation</em>" (which we as culture eventually need to be able to do) and we let him be the spokesman for "modern science". </p>
 <p>
 [[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
-</p>
-</p>See the argument by Einstein and Infeld, from "The Evolution of Physics", which we summarized [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here].
 </p>
+<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our reasoning, or perception, <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>
+<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>
-<h3>"Correspondence with reality" is a product of illusion</h3>
-<p>How, then, <em>do we</em> judge whether our ideas or models "correspond to reality"?
-In "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge", Einstein pointed out that our favored approaches are results of illusions.
-[[File:Einstein-Illusion1.jpeg]]
-<blockquote>
-"It was an illusion which any one can easily understand if, for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from later philosophy, and from natural science (...). Someone, indeed, might even raise the question whether, without something of this illusion, anything really great can be achieved in the realm of philosophical thought—but we do not wish to ask that question."
-</blockquote>
-[[File:Einstein-Illusion2.jpeg]]
-<blockquote>
-"This illusion dominates the daily life of men and animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences."
-</blockquote>
-This question must then be asked:
-<blockquote>If "correspondence with reality" is a property that cannot be verified, which is itself prone to lead us to illusions—can we really use it to distinguish truth from illusion (which is, allegedly, the value proposition of the academic approach to knowledge)?
-</blockquote>
-</p>
+<h3>Our culture is founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>
+<p>We define [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]] as a popularly relied on but unverified belief, which has certain social and psychological purposes. </p>
-<!-- OLD
+<p>Our task being to find a solid foundation stone for developing a culture, or in other words a criterion for distinguishing "truth" (that is, "good" information or knowledge) from illusion, deception and conceptional mayhem, we must ask—<em>Why</em> use a criterion ("correspondence with reality") that cannot be verified? And  which is itself a product of illusion?  </p>
-"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="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Causal explanation is not the way to reality</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of socialization</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a construction</h3>
-<p>Even our common sense is a product of (our and our culture's) experience, with things such as pebbles and waves of water. We have no reason to believe that it will still function when applied to things we <em>do not</em> have in experience—such as small quanta of matter. A complete argument, based on the double-slit experiment, is in Oppenheimer's essay "Uncommon Sense". </p>
+<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
-<p>By stating his "epistemological credo", in the introductory pages of his "Autobiographical Notes", Einstein too legitimized this position; see it quoted [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Einstein-Epistemology here].</p>
+</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>Researchers showed that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.  </p>
+<p>We illustrate this point by a few references.</p>
+<h3>Evidence from natural sciences</h3>
+<p>In the 19th century it was natural to consider the human mind as a <em>camera obscura</em>—a perfect recording device, which <em>reflects</em> the outside world in an objective sense. But in the 20th century the researchers were able to <em>looked into</em> the supposed camera. They reached a completely different conclusion. We represented them by Humberto Maturana and Jean Piaget, see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>Evidence from sociology</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed, not discovered</h2></div>
+<p>Here Pierre Bourdieu's keyword <em>doxa</em> will provide us the clue we need.</p>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>Bourdieu adopted it from Max Weber, but its usage dates all the way back to Plato (which suggests that <em>doxa</em> is profoundly connected with the academic tradition—a point we shall come back to later).  the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is believed to be the <em>only</em> "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>
-<p>During the 20th century, the <em>philosophical</em> preoccupation with reality (how to find a way to reality by right thinking), gave way to the studies of the ways in which we <em>construct</em> reality—in biology of perception, psychology and sociology. In our commentary we represented them by Maturana, Piaget and Berger and Luckmann, see it (with introduction) [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
+<p>Another point of reference is Berger and Luckmann's classic "Social Construction of Reality", where a theory of the <em>process</em> of social reality construction is contributed (see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2013/04/24/science-and-religion/#BandL here]). Their keyword "universal theory" deserves our special attention—as an explanation how "reality" has served, historically, to legitimize the existing power relationships, and social order.</p>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in theory</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Federation vs. socialization</h3>
+<p>We have improvised a <em>theory</em> of socialization—and offer it now as a stepping stone for building the <em>holotopia</em>. In our opus, and notably in The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a prelude to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by a <em>tread</em> comprising three <em>vignettes</em>. We named them by their chief protagonists: Odin the Horse, Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio (see a summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). We here highlight the main points.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>Odin the Horse</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of power</h2></div>
+<p>The longer story illustrates the turf behavior of Icelandic horses living in nature, by describing a concrete event. Imagine two horses in spectacular and manly body-to-body duel, running side by side with their long hairs and hairy tails flagging in the wind, Odin the Horse pushing New Horse toward the river. And away from his herd of mares.</p>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Here comes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", and the story about how Bourdieu <em>became</em> a sociologist, in Algeria, while observing how power morphed—from the kind of power that kept Galilei in house arrest, to (what Bourdieu called) <em>symbolic power</em>, which deprives the <em>contemporary</em> Galilei from influencing the opinion of the masses. Ironically—also Bourdieu's...! </p>
-<p>Bourdieu's theory is how <em>socialization</em> works—as an instrument of <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<p>Let us just highlight here a single concept, <em>doxa</em>, which reached Bourdieu via Weber, and all the way from Plato... This <em>keyword</em> stands for the <em>experience</em> that our social reality is the only one possible. As we shall see, the academic tradition may be seen as an age-old struggle with (power-motivated) <em>doxa</em>. Bourdieu left us a detailed <em>theory</em> of the inner workings of <em>symbolic power</em>; see a brief summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here].</p>
-<p>The following excerpt from Berger and Luckmann's "Social Construction of Reality" will also be relevant:
-<blockquote>
- As more complex forms of knowledge emerge and an economic surplus is built up, experts devote themselves full-time to the subjects of their expertise, which, with the development of conceptual machineries, may become increasingly removed from the pragmatic necessities of everyday life. Experts in these rarefied bodies of knowledge lay claim to a novel status. They are not only experts in this or that sector of the societal stock of knowledge, they claim ultimate jurisdiction over that stock of knowledge in its totality. They are, literally, universal experts. This does not mean that they claim to know everything, but rather that they claim to know the ultimate significance of what everybody knows and does. Other men may continue to stake out particular sectors of reality, but they claim expertise in the ultimate definitions of reality as such.
-</blockquote>
-This theory about the nature of reality, then, becomes an instrument par excellence for legitimizing the given social reality:
+<h3>Bourdieu and Symbolic Power</h3>
-<blockquote>
+<p>
-Habitualization and institutionalization in themselves limit the flexibility of human actions. Institutions tend to persist unless they become ‘problematic’. Ultimate legitimations inevitably strengthen this tendency. The more abstract the legitimations are, the less likely they are to be modified in accordance with changing pragmatic exigencies. If there is a tendency to go on as before anyway, the tendency is obviously strengthened by having excellent reasons for doing so. This means that institutions may persist even when, to an outside observer, they have lost their original functionality or practicality. One does certain things not because they work, but because they are right – right, that is, in terms of the ultimate definitions of reality promulgated by the universal experts.
+[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
-</blockquote>
+</p>
-</p>
+<p>We'll need two points from Bourdieu's theory of "symbolic power", the first of which is represented by the card above: Symbolic power tends to be invisible and ignored by <em>everyone</em> concerned!</p>
+<p>A story illustration, which we have not told in sufficient detail yet, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison during the war, to <em>symbolic power</em> following the independence.</p>
+<p>To see what this all means, imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—and who promptly finds out that his entire way of being, which back home served him well, here makes him all but dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking seem unappealing even to the young women who moved from his home village—who saw something else in the movies and the restaurants.</p>
+<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education.</p>
 </div> </div>
------
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6"><h3>A historical introduction to the foundations of culture</h3>
+<div class="col-md-6">
-<blockquote>
+<p>The second point we need from Bourdieu is highlighted by the cover of his book "Language & Symbolic Power", shown on the right.</p>
-This is a point to take a moment and reflect about the historical roots of the cultural disparity (between our immense scientific and technological know-how, and our lack of cultural "know-what", as Norbert Wiener called it), which is the <em>holotopia</em>'s core theme. See [[A historical introduction to the foundations of culture]].
+<p>The point is that <em>not only</em> are relationships of empowerment and disempowerment deeply coded in our language or more generally "culture"—but that this language is "symbolic", or pre-rational. And indeed, on the cover of the book we see a turf. In Odin the Horse story the turf was a physical piece of land that Odin was defending. But in a culture, the structure of the 'turf' is not only symbolic, but also far more complex—as much as our culture is more complex than the culture of the horses. Yet in spite of that, the similarity is striking—when we observe that the  power relationships are neatly organized <em>in space</em>, in a manner that <em>corresponds</em> to their organization in the idea world; in our social "reality". </p></div>
-</blockquote>
------
+<div class="col-md-3">
-<!--
+[[File:LandSP.jpg]]
+</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>
+<p>The king enters the room, and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p>
+<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
+<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>
+<p>From Bourdieu's theory we'll highlight only two more of his keywords: <em>habitus</em> and <em>field</em> (which he also called "game"). The <em>habitus</em> is a set of embodied predispositions, manners of thinking and behaving. The king has his own <em>habitus</em>, and so does the page. Think of the <em>habitus</em> as a cultural "role", analogous to a role in a theatre play. But you must also see it as a power position. Think of the <em>field</em> as a "culture" of a certain social group (a king's court, an academic discipline...), where through innumerably many carrots and sticks everyone gets "put into his place". On the symbolic 'turf'.</p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-6">
-<blockquote>
+<h3>Damasio and "Descartes' Error"</h3>
+<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with an all-important insight <em>experimentally</em> proven by cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>
+<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
+<p>Damasio, in other words, explained why we don't get up wondering whether we should take off our pajamas and run out into the street naked (although this may be completely normal in some completely different culture). Our <em>embodied</em> "reality" controls the very content of our rational mind! </p>
+<p>Please <em>do</em> read the brief but centrally important anecdotal illustration of Damasio's all-important scientific insight, which we provided  [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Damasio here].</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Descartes-error.jpg]]
 </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>
+<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>
+<h3>Our key point</h3>
+<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
+<p>Odin the Horse does not "really" need all "his" mares. On the contrary. The reason why the farmer decided to introduce New Horse was that Odin was getting too old. So another social "reality" may be incomparably better for everyone. But Odin does not see any of that. In his primitive horse mind, he only sees that New Horse is intruding into "his" turf, threatening to privatize some of "his" mares, and Odin was going to stop that at all cost.</p>
+<p>But we the people have a whole <em>other</em> side of our nature; pointed to, coincidentally, by Odin's very name.</p>
+<p>Beyond this, there are realms of opportunities for developing culture, and improving our condition. <em>This</em> is what <em>holotopia</em> is about. But let's come back to this theme in a moment.</p>
 </div> </div>
-<!-- EVEN OLDER
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in practice</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How we lost culture</h3>
-<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>
+<p><em>Socialization</em>, however, has two sides. On the one side is "symbolic power". And on the other—culture!</p>
+<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, carved in stone by God himself?</p>
-<div class="page-header" ><h1>Socialized Reality</h1></div>
+<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to the modern mind, the fact that this would violate certain "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>
+<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>
+<p>An example are principles to live by; guidance to conduct our daily affaires.  But not the only, or even the main one.</p>
+<p>Think about entering a cathedral—an immersive experience combining a variety of media, including architecture, painting, music, ritual... The point was not to know how <em>really</em> the world originated, but to <em>socialize</em> people to think and feel and behave in a certain way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>
+<p>Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled; we have left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. Now, we must provide for ourselves. </p>
+<p>And so we got it all wrong. Whether it was "really" God who wrote those tablets is beside the point. The "reality" has always only been a medium; the <em>socialization</em> has always been the message! And the reproduction and <em>creation</em> of culture. </p>
+<p>The <em>real</em> question, then, is not "Does God exist?" What matters is "<em>Who</em> is now creating our culture for us? And <em>in what way</em>?" </p>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
+<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
-<blockquote>
+<p>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not at all those "rational decision makers" they believed we are, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of our psyche is—good business! Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
-<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 four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (available [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are highly recommended.</p>
-<p>The answer offered will be the same as the core of our proposal—to change the relationship we have with information.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<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-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-6">
-<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>Pavlov and Chakhotin</h3>
-<h3><em>Socialization</em></h3>
+<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) are another metaphor for <em>socialization</em>.</p>
-<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>Having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was not arguing his points rationally (which would indeed be hard to imagine); that he was <em>socializing</em> the German people to accept his ideology and agenda. Chakhotin advocated, and  practiced in those elections, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> techniques to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
-<p>The question, then, is—Who does the <em>socialization</em>? In what way? And for what ends?</p>
+<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique". It contains both a testimony, and a theory of <em>disempowerment</em> and <em>dehumanization</em> of masses of people by political <em>socialization</em>; read our comments [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
+<br>
+<small>One of Chakhotin's ideograms</small>
 </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-3"></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>
+<h3>Edelman and symbolic action</h3>
+<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (such as the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power). The field research showed that the voters are unfamiliar with proposed policies, that the incumbents did not fulfill electoral promises etc. This does not mean that the elections <em>don't</em> have a purpose, Edelman observed; it's just that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what is commonly believed. Their purpose is, in Edelman's parlance, <em>symbolic</em>—to <em>legitimize</em> the  governments and policies; by making people <em>feel</em> they were asked.</p>
+<p>Have you been wondering what makes one qualified to be the president of the United States? </p>
+<p>
+[[File:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>Edelman had a career-long mission. To help us understand the world we live in, he contributed a thorough study of "symbolic uses of politics" and "politics as symbolic action".</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-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>My American Uncle</h3>
-<p>Throughout our <em>prototypes</em>, Einstein represents "modern science" (if it were <em>federated</em>).</p>
+<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>
+<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</p>
+<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
+<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>
+<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
+</blockquote>
-<h3>Closed watch argument</h3>
+<h3>The Matrix</h3>
-<p>Explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be rationally claimed.</p>
+<p>The movie The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (alias <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, using them as a power source. This excerpt requires no comments.</p>
-<p>Read it <em>here</em> (links will be provided).</p>
+<blockquote>
+<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
+<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
+<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
+</blockquote>
-<h3>Reality as illusion</h3>
+<h3>Oedipus Rex</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>
+<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>
+<p>A parable for our civilization?</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="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</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-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em> points to a leverage point</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>
+[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </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>
+<blockquote>
-<p>Damasio's theory beautifully synergizes with Bourdieu's observations that etc. etc.</p>
+As a visual shorthand, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>  points to two <em>fundamental</em> changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And the <em>academia</em>'s situation that resulted from them.</blockquote>
-<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>
+<h3>The end of innocence</h3>
+<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>
+<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>
+<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>
+<p>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</p>
+<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as <em>part of</em> the world; and as <em>accountable for our role</em>  in it.  </p>
+<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>
+<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p>
+<h3>Enormous gains will be made</h3>
+<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>
+<p>Our proposal—the way we have <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—may in this context be understood as the invitation to the <em>academia</em> to guide our society 'through the <em>mirror</em>', and to a completely new symbolic and <em>actual</em> reality. </p>
+<p>We have coined the keywords <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>, to point to the academic and the socio-cultural reality 'on the other side'. </p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
-<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-3"><h2><em>Academia</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our proposal is addressed to "the <em>academia</em>", where the <em>academia</em> is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By pointing to Socrates and Galilei as this tradition's progenitors and iconic representatives, we show that <em>resisting</em> degenerate <em>socialization</em>, even by risking one's own life, has been what the academic tradition was all about since its inception.</p>
-<p>The Matrix is an example of <em>socialized reality</em>.</p>
+<p>As the dialogues of Socrates, as Plato recorded them, might suggest—the <em>academia</em> has achieved that purpose by using <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> or <em>epistemology</em> to liberate us from false or socialization-induced beliefs.</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-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our invitation is to a <em>dialog</em>; and we said that the <em>dialog</em> streamlines the "cultural revival", by introducing, and <em>being</em> a remedial way to communicate (which liberates us from "symbolic power", and the corresponding habits of communication).</p>
-<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>
+<p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>
+<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Maturana—Piaget—Berger and Luckmann</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Homo ludens</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>The point of this definition is that we are <em>not</em> (only) the <em>homo sapiens</em> as we have been told. We have also another side—which, as we have just seen, must not be ignored and neglected.</p>
-<p>Studies of reality construction in biology of perception, psychology and sociology.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<p>The homo ludens is the socialized human.  He is the product of <em>power structure</em>. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not seek knowledge. He does not even care about the facts.  He adjusts to "the field". He sees what (as he knows) people in power, or in his "field", <em>want</em> to hear. He looks for,  and does, "what works".</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Nietzsche—Ehrlich—Giddens—Debord</h2></div>
+<p>It is interesting to observe that the <em>homo ludens</em> has a surrogate epistemology, and even an ontology, which leads him to entirely different worldviews and conclusion than the <em>epistemology</em> that the <em>homo sapiens</em> has. For instance, both <em>homo ludens</em> and <em>homo sapiens</em> see himself as the epitome of human evolution, and the other as about to go extinct. The <em>homo sapiens</em> looks at the data; the <em>homo ludens</em> just looks around.</p>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>
-<p>How we lost the <em>personal</em> capability to connect the dots...</p>
+It is not difficult to see that the <em>homo ludens</em> behavior was exactly what The Club of Rome was up against. In the five-minute trailer for  The Last Call documentary (which follows the authors of The Limits to Growth through their ensuing struggles to have themselves heard) has <em>two</em> such episodes on record (see them [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=135   here] and [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 here]). </p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Pavlov—Chakhotin</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Politics (political propaganda) as <em>socialization</em>. What brought Hitler into power...</p>
+<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
+<p>
+<em>Truth by convention</em> is the alternative. It is the notion of truth that is <em>entirely</em> independent of "reality", and of traditional or <em>socialized</em> concepts and ideas. It is offered as a new foundation stone, to <em>consistently</em> replace reification. And as 'Archimedean point', necessary for empowering information and knowledge to once again make a difference. </p>
+<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
+<p>Three points need to be understood about <em>truth by convention</em>:
+<ul>
+<li>it makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</li>
+<li>it provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></li>
+<li>it provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</li>
+</ul>
+</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Freud—Bernays</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></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>
+<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. This <em>epistemology</em> is exactly what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. And evaluated and treated accordingly.</p>
+<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p>An introduction with a link to the article is provided [https://holoscope.info/2012/11/17/design-epistemology/ here].</p>
 </div> </div>
-<!-- OLD
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Implicit information</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>
+<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p>
-<blockquote>
+<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
-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>
+<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>
-</div> </div>
+<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>
+</ul>
-<div class="row">
+</p>
-<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-3"><h2><em>Symbolic action</em></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>
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</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>
+<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</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-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><p>We can now briefly revisit the definition of <em>power structure</em> we gave with the Power Structure insight, by adding what's been told here. </p>
-<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>
+<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a <em>structure</em> comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p>
+<p>Throughout history revolutions resulted when people understood the issues of power and justice in a new way. We are witnessing a spectacular and unexpected turning point in this history: That <em>we</em> are the enemy! And that we are <em>socialized</em> to be our enemy!</p>
+<p>The proposed action—to learn to collaborate, and to take our <em>socialization</em> into our own hands and approach it creatively—is naturally seen as our next evolutionary step.</p>
 </div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
+[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
-<small><center>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></center></small>
+<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></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-3"><h2><em>Religion</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>
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>This <em>keyword</em> points to an answer to the next obvious question: Is competition really part of "human nature"? <em>Or</em> do we have another side in our "nature", which can be elevated through culture, as deliberate <em>socialization</em>? </p>
+<p>We adapted the definition provided by Martin Lings, roughly as follows. Notice that this definition, just as our other definitions, is purely by convention; and that it relies on nothing but observations, or "phenomenology". </p>
+<p>Imagine the kind of wheel one sees in Western films. The points where the spokes meet the rim are labeled by (what we call) <em>archetypes</em>: "Truth", "Justice", "Beauty" and so on. In this definition, <em>archetypes</em> are, simply, what has historically helped people overcome ego-centeredness, and serve the humanity, and its cultural evolution.</p>
-<h3>"Reality" cannot help us distinguish truth from falsehood</h3>
+</div> </div>
-<p>The "correspondence with reality" is a truth criterion that cannot be tested in practice.</p>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
-<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-3"><h2>What's Going on?</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 class="col-md-6"><p>A <em>polyscopic</em> book, answering the title question by the subtitle "A Cultural Revival". </p>
+<p>We use the new information to illuminate the <em>foundations</em>.  It's the <em>foundations</em> that are failing. Fixing won't do; we need to <em>rebuild</em>, from the foundations up.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Whats Going On.gif]]
-</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-3"><h2>Key Point Dialog</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h3>
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>As mentioned, the initial step we are proposing for <em>holotopia</em> development is a series of <em>dialogs</em>. Part of the story is to go back to the original values, and to Aristotle... Another part is to build upon the important work of David Bohm and others, as we have just seen—and by doing that to begin recreating our <em>collective mind</em>, as we have just seen. To prepare for this task, we have done a series of <prototypes> and experiments under the shared name Key Point Dialog.</p>
-<p>From the 20th century science and philosophy we have learned that
+<p>A <em>key point</em> is, simply, "a way to change course"; it is an insight that can lead to a direction change in a community. When capitalized, the Key Point is the Big <em>key point</em>–a one that can lead to a global shift. And so the challenge that motivates this <em>prototype</em> is to structure the communication within a community so that its members jointly see the <em>key point</em>. </p>
+<p>David Bohm's original idea, his "dialogue", is a slow-moving event. It is designed <em>not</em> to have a purpose; the participants check all their agendas at the entrance door, and do their very best to let the "dialogue" take its own spontaneous course.</p>
+<p>What we did was to, metaphorically speaking, turn Bohm's "dialogue" into a high-energy cyclotron.</p>
+<p>Long story short, the <em>key point dialog</em> is composed of a community's opinion leaders (the people who are qualified, trusted, by their role accountable... to set directions). They are physically placed into a <em>context</em>, which symbolically places them into the context of our times and conditions (by <em>federating</em> relevant insights). In the center of the circle a piece of evidence is placed, which challenges the current direction and requires a new one. An 'amplifier' (implemented by suitable media technology) is also present in space and online, so that if and when the circle begins to 'resonate' with new tones, as 'stricken' by the evidence provided in the context, they are spread into the community, at which point the <em>dialog</em> becomes properly public.</p>
+<p>Several runs and improvements of the <em>key point dialog</em> were implemented over the years, of which we name the following:</p>
 <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>Municipality <em>key point dialogs</em> in Norway (KommuneWiki project) was developed to add the capability to reassess the dominant (<em>power structure</em>-induced) values and lifestyle patterns to the conventional social-democratic repertoire of Norwegian municipalities (which bear the suggestive name "kommune" or communes) </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>The Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008 had all the offline elements described above, and the explicit goal to address Aurelio Peccei's core proposition, which motivates <em>holotopia</em></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>
+<li>The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>dialog</em> in Belgrade added also the 'amplifier' or media infrastructure—represented by video streaming, photography, TV, and a public dialog organized on DebateGraph. </li>
 </ul>
-</p>
+<p>See the summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#KeyPointDialog here].</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>
+</div> </div>
-<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-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling definition</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>This is a <em>methodology</em> definition  <em>prototype</em>: Instead of us basing our work with knowledge on <em>myths</em>, we create a written convention, a <em>methodology</em>—which can be continuously updated, when the axiom it embodies no longer suit; or, simply, to create an approach to knowledge that serves a <em>different</em> purpose. </p>
-<p>Two quotations of Einstein, repeated in several places already, including Federation through Images on this website, are sufficient to make this point:
+<p>This <em>methodology</em> is, of course, a foundation for an approach to knowledge that might suit the order of things 'on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>'. A copy of the article where Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> is defined is provided [https://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Articles/PMDef.pdf  here].</p>
-* 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-3"><h2>Visual Literacy Definition</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>This <em>prototype</em> illustrates several ideas and tools of considerable strategic and tactical potential. The main one is to replace <em>reification</em> and <em>tradition</em> (or metaphorically 'candles') as determining the direction, and using a <em>federated</em> principle (rule of thumb, overarching insight). And hence "restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge"—and to the people creating them of course.</p>
-<p>A brief summary begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
+<p> The real story may need to be told, but meanwhile, here are some preliminary sketches. So think about a whole community of researchers doing work on a theme that just couldn't be more needed by the society. And yet being virtually of no real use to the society. The underlying problem being all those <em>inherited</em> fundamental and institutional incongruences, which we've been talking about all along.</p>
-<h3>"Reality" construction in cognitive biology</h3>
+<h3>The story</h3>
-<p>To 'see ourselves'—how (we saw that) "reality" is constructed—it is sufficient to <em>federate</em> Maturana (as cognitive biologist), </p>
+<p>In 1969, four visionary researchers saw the need, and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. What exactly did they see? Three decades later, on the IVLA's annual conference which was that year in Iowa, a panel is organized, like so many times before, on the theme of visual literacy definition. <em>What is</em> really "visual literacy"? Ten respected members of the community proposed ten different definitions, and at that point the event ran out of time and everyone went home.</p>
+<p>Dino was jet lagged and woke up early, and so while rolling from side to side in bed he saw how the whole issue could be handled in a very different way. In the first morning parallel session he was, by serendipity, alone in the audience with Lyda Cochran, the only surviving IVLA co-founder, and so he told her the idea. Lyda liked it, and organized a special panel for Dino to propose this idea to the IVLA elders. To the next year's conference, Dino contributed an article where the ideas were elaborated. Lyda was not present, but Dino showed her the article beforehand, and her response was enthusiastic. A result was that Dino was invited into the IVLA board, obviously on Lyda's recommendation. We mention this not to brag, but to illustrate how a completely different approach to definition, along the lines introduced here, could entirely change the <em>impact</em> of a community of researchers; and of the key point they have in store for the society.</p>
-<h3>"Reality" construction in psychology</h3>
+<h3>A definition that points to the purpose</h3>
-<p>Piaget (as cognitive psychologist) and </p>
-<h3>"Reality" construction in sociology</h3>
+<p>The proposed definition focuses on the key point, not on "factual truth" (determining what exactly "is" and "is not" visual literacy). The point is made, in the course of presentation, that while such definitions tend to be elaborate, they also tend to miss the point—which shows both to the community, and to the world beyond, why they should care.</p>
-<p>Berger and Luckmann (as sociologists), to see how those insights were made, and some of their consequences.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>The purpose is communicated by using the techniques outlined with the <em>narrow frame</em> insight. Hence it can be exported into the outer world or <em>federated</em>. We used the following <em>ideogram</em>,  see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#VL here].</p>
-<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
+[[File:whowins.jpg]]
 </p>
+<p>In the above picture the <em>implicit information</em> meets the <em>explicit information</em> in a direct duel. Who wins? Since this poster is a cigarette advertising, the answer is obvious. </p>
-<h3>Sergei Chakhotin</h3>
+<h3>The purpose is all-important, but easily missed</h3>
-<p>
-Text
-</p>
-<h3>Murray Edelman</h3>
+<blockquote>While the official culture is focused on explicit messages and rational discourse, our popular culture is being dominated, and created, by <em>implicit information</em>—the imagery, which we have not yet learned to rationally decode, and counteract. </blockquote>
-<p>
-Text
-</p>
-<h3>Symbolic action</h3>
+<p>So becoming "literate" about <em>implicit information</em> is, as we saw above, our society's vital need. A need that is well beyond the interest in visual communication as such. And so it has turned out that this need is most easily misunderstood <em>by the IVLA researchers themselves</em>—who, biased by the usual "factual" orientation of academic research, "objectivity", article publication etc.—all too easily miss the point that there's something essential that needs to be communicated to the society. A <em>completely</em> different institutional organization and way of working are necessary for fulfilling that purpose. We are once again witnessing an instance of a phenomenon we see repeated again and again, in the examples we are presenting.</p>
-<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>
+<h3>An instance of <em>systemic innovation</em> in traditional <em>academia</em> </h3>
+<p>The story we've just told is intended to serve (also) as a parable—pointing to the kind of difference that the proposed approach (defining a field by convention, which points to a purpose) can bring to the traditional <em>academia</em>. </p>
+<p>Another similar example is our definition of "design", which was proposed to the design community, and received a similarly enthusiastic reception (the article, comments and evidence of enthusiastic reception are provided [https://holoscope.info/2009/09/14/an-academic-foundation-for-design/ here]).</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>
+<!-- OLD
-<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-3"><h2>A clue to <em>cultural revival</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<h3>The Matrix</h3>
+<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>
-<p>
+<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</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>
+<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
-<p>Even the fact that periodically there is a revolution, "the One" comes and restarts the matrix... </p>
+<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>
-<p>This puts us into an interesting situation—<em>can we ever</em> liberate ourselves from the <em>matrix</em> completely?</p>
+<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
-<p>Of course, that's exactly what this part of the Holotopia project (liberation from <em>socialized reality</em>) is about.</p>
+</blockquote>
-<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-3"><h2>Reality and beyond</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<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>
+<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, written in stone by God himself?</p>
+<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to a modern mind, the fact that this would violate "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>
+<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>
+<p>An example are principles to live by.  But not the only one.</p>
+<p>A tradition includes not only principles, but also rituals, architecture, music, norms...—by which people are (let's use this word now) <em>socialized</em> to think and feel and behave in a certain  way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>
+<p>So Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled, and left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. We must now provide for ourselves. We must <em>become</em> a bit like the "father" was...</p>
+</div> </div>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</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>Our <em>contemporary</em> culture too is founded a popular belief—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; that "correspondence with reality" can be rationally verified; and that "the scientific worldview" is a result of such verification, and therefore "objectively true".</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>
+<h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>
+<p>
-<div class="row">
+[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></h2></div>
+</p>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our speculation or reflection <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>
-<p>It's defined <em>by convention</em></p>
+<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>
-<p>Triply secure: (1 - 3)</p>
+<h3><em>Our</em> culture too has been founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>
+<p>It follows that <em>our</em> culture too is founded on a [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]]. </p>
+<p>This can easily be understood, and forgiven, if one takes into account that the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is deeply engrained in our 'cultural DNA', and even in our language.  When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural; since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Prototype</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>Another foundational <em>myth</em> lingers—that a "normal person" sees "reality" as it "really is"; which then of course means "as other normal people see it". This places "reality" into the hands of the <em>socialization</em>, <em>tradition</em>, or <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<p>Resolves the <em>symbolic action</em> problem. Also the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. Enables us to <em>bootstrap</em>. </p>
+<p>Research has shown that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding <em>the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction</em> provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.  </p>
+<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<blockquote>
+<p>Having lost its bearings in philosophy, "reality" as preoccupation migrated to biology, psychology and sociology—where the <em>mechanisms</em> of reality construction could be studied. </p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>We represented them by Maturana, Piaget and Berger and Luckmann—see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
+<p>The sensation of meaning, the "aha" we experience when the details seem to fit snuggly together into a larger picture, is an indispensable constituent of our handling of knowledge, for a number of reasons. But it is <em>not</em> a sign that we have seen "the reality". Hence meaning needs to be used with caution, and in an <em>informed</em> way.  </p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of <em>socialization</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>"Reality" may well be understood as a concept the traditions developed for the purpose of <em>socialization</em>. A "normal" person, it is assumed, sees "the reality" as other normal people see it. By [[Holotopia:Socialization|<em>socialization</em>]], we mean "conditioning"; the results of uncountably many "carrots and sticks", internalized throughout our lifetime, and giving us certain automatic responses that constitute our "personality". Laboriot comments in "My American Uncle":</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>
+<blockquote>
+... the mother embracing a child, the decoration that will flatter the narcissism of a warrior, the applause that will accompany a narration of an actor. All this will free certain chemical substances in the brain and result in pleasure. (...) Finally, we need to be aware that what penetrates into our nervous system from birth and perhaps even before, in utero, the stimuli that will enter our nervous system come to us essentially from the others, and that we <em>are</em> the others. When we die, it will be the others that we've internalized in our nervous system, who have constructed us, who have constructed our brain, who have filled it up, that will die.
-</div> </div>
+</blockquote>
+<h3>Bourdieu's theory of <em>socialization</em></h3>
+<p>In his "theory of practice", Pierre Bourdieu gave us a comprehensive sociological theory of <em>socialization</em>. For now, let us represent it with a single word, <em>doxa</em>—which Bourdieu adopted from Max Weber, and whose usage dates all the way back to Plato. We mention this to suggest that <em>doxa</em> points to an idea that has deep roots and central function in the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is the "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>
+<h3>What makes a king "real"</h3>
+<p>The king enters the room and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p>
+<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
+<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>
-<!-- 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-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>power structure</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Symbolic power</h3>
-<h3>The miracle of the mirror</h3>
+<p>What strategy could be more effective for controlling us, for inhibiting our societal and cultural evolution ('keeping Galilei in house arrest'), then to construct the very worldview we collectively share and uphold as "reality"? </p>
-<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".
+[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 </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>The story, which we have not yet told in sufficient detail, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison, during the war, to become what Bourdieu called <em>symbolic power</em>, following the independence. The following <em>vignette</em> will suggest what Bourdieu actually saw. </p>
-<p>
+<p>Imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—only to discover that his entire way of being, which served him well, has become dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but the very way he walks and talks are suddenly unappealing even to the young women from his very village—who saw something else in movies and in restaurants.</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>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education. He realized that the essence of power, and disempowerment, is not, and never was, as we the people tend to perceive it.</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-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-6">
-<p>
+<h3><em>Symbolic power</em> is part of <em>power structure</em></h3>
-The evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has brought us into this situation; in front of the metaphorical <em>mirror</em>. </p>
+<p>Initially, we used to conflate <em>symbolic power</em> and <em>power structure</em> into a single concept—<em>power structure</em>. We later found it better to separate them—but let us now put them back together. </p>
-<p>This metaphor has several connotations:
+<p>Throughout history, revolutions took place when people <em>perceived</em> the issue of justice and power in a new way, and saw themselves as unjustly disempowered. What we are witnessing here is a similar development taking place in our own time. Who 'keeps Galilei in prison' (hinders the progress of knowledge, and our evolution) today—without using <em>any</em> of the recognized instruments of power?</p>
-<ul>
+<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p> </div>
-<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>
+[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
-<small>The Mirror <em>idogram</em></small>
+<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</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-3"><h2>Understanding <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>
+<p>On The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a predecessor to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio <em>thread</em> (which we outlined [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). In what follows we highlight the main ideas.</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>
+<h3>Bourdieu's "theory of practice"</h3>
-<p>According to this convention, <em>information</em>, reflects human experience, not "reality". </p>
+<p>We condense it to a single keyword—"habitus". It is a generic keyword for embodied predispositions to think and act in a certain way, which tend to be transmitted directly, from body to body, as we suggested above. Someone has the habitus of a king; someone else "is" a serf, or a knight or a page. Imagine them together as comprising a symbolic turf—where each of us has a place. </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>
+<h3>Damasio's "Descartes' Error"</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>
+<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with the ideas of cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>
-<small> <p> The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is of course an example.</p> </small>
+<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>
-<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>
+<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
+<p>This real-life anecdote about the turf behavior of Icelandic horses serves to make introduce an interesting way of looking at the theme of power, with large potential impact—which is the following.</p>
+<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
+<p>An alternative is, of course, <em>human development</em>. Of exactly the kind that the Buddha, Christ and so many other humanity's teachers have been pointing to.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Who keeps Galilei in house arrest</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>
+We did not really liberate ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>; and from the negative <em>socialization</em> it engender. Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—no longer the prerogative of the kings and the clergy, it is now used to subjugate it to <em>new</em> power holders.
+</p>
+<p>This terrain is all too familiar. The anecdotes shared below will serve to remind us how we ended up needing so much <em>human development</em>; and a <em>cultural revival</em>. </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>
+<h3>Pavlov and 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>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) can serve us as a suitable metaphor 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>After having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was <em>socializing</em> German people to accept his ideas. He practiced, and advocated, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> information to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </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>
+<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique"—see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>
 </div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
@@ Line 793: / Line 536: @@
 </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>
+<h3>Edelman and symbolic action</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">
+<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: This does not mean that the elections don't have a purpose; it only means that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what's believed. Their purpose is in Edelman's parlance <em>symbolic</em>—which means to legitimize the <em>existing</em> governments and policies, by making people <em>feel</em> they'd been asked and included.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<p>Have you been wondering what makes one qualified to become the president of the United States? </p>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>
-<h3>Berger and Luckmann</h3>
+[[File:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>To help us understand the world we live in, Edelman contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action". Fifty years ago.</p>
-<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>
+<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
-<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>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not as rational as they liked to believe, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of the human psyche is—good business. Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
-<p>But can you think of a more contemporary one?</p>
+<p>The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (click [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are most highly recommended.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>As always, this core element present in our 'collective unconscious' (even if it has all too often eluded our personal awareness) has found various expressions in popular culture—as the following two examples will illustrate.</p>
-<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>
+<h3>The Matrix</h3>
-</div>
+<p>The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (read <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, while using them as the power source. The following excerpt require no comments.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3 round-images">
+<blockquote>
-[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]
+<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
+<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
+<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
+</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<h3>Oedipus Rex</h3>
+<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>
+<p>A parable for our civilization?</p>
-<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-3"><h2>We are not yet free</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>
-<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>
+The task that is before us:</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>
+<blockquote>
-<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>During the past century we learned how to harness the power of the wind, the water, the electricity and the atom. Our next task is to harness the <em>largest</em> power—our <em>socialization</em> </p>
-<p>We can choose between the following two ways of rendering the situation that resulted.</p>
+<p>This power is the largest because it decides how all those other powers are used.</p>
-[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
+</blockquote>
-<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-3"><h2>Our point</h2></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">
+[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
+<blockquote>
+We Mirror <em>ideogram</em> as a visual shorthand points to two <em>fundamental</em> recent changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And in the <em>academia</em>'s situation.</blockquote>
+<h3>The end of innocence</h3>
+<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>
+<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>
-* Albert Einstein*
+<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>
-<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>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</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>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as part of the world, and reponsible for it. </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
+<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>
+<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p>
-<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>
+<h3>Enormous gains can be made</h3>
+<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>
-& Berger and Luckmann
+<p>Hence our overall proposal—the way we've <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—is that the <em>academia</em> should step through the <em>mirror</em>; and guide our society to a completely new reality, which awaits on the other side.</p>
-<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="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
-<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-3"><h2><em>Reification</em>, <em>truth by convention</em> and <em>design epistemology</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
+<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
 <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.
+<em>Truth by convention</em> is the radical alternative. It's truth that suits the <em>design</em> order of things. It is the new foundation stone, to CONSISTENTLY replace <em>reification</em>.  'Archimedean point' for giving knowledge once again the power to 'move the world'. </p>
-</p>
+<p>Three points need to be understood: <em>truth by convention</em>
-<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>makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</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>provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></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>
+<li>provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</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>
+</p>
+<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
+<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. Concretely, it is what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. <em>Not</em> in the "objective reality" puzzle, but in the REAL reality...</p>
+<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
-<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-3"><h2><em>Information</em> and <em>implicit information</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>
-<p>[[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]</p>
+<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p>
-<p>[[implicit information|<em>implicit information</em>]] </p>
+<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
-</div></div>
+<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>
+<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>
-<div class="row">
+</ul>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
+</p>
-<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-3"><h2><em>Symbolic action</em> and <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</p>
-<p>
+<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</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-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>
-<p>
+<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-Systemic innovation—making the systems whole
+<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>
-</p>
+</div> </div>
-</div> </div>
-* Back to [[Holotopia]]
-XXXX
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>
+<p>While both <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em> are visions and not <em>prototypes</em>, those visions have been developed and made concrete through a series of <em>prototypes</em>, as outlined on these pages. The most recent experiments are the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#EarthLab Earth Lab Bergen] and [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#ThePSposter The Paradigm Strategy poster] with the associated event in Oslo.</p>
-At the core of the Enlightenment was a profound change of our way to truth and meaning—from seeking them in the Bible, to empowering the reason to find <em>new</em> ways. Galilei in house arrest was our <em>reason</em> that was kept in check, and barred from taking its place in the evolution of ideas. Have we reached the end of this all-important evolutionary process, which Socrates and Plato initiated twenty-five centuries ago? Can the <em>academia</em> still make a radical turn, and guide our society to make an even larger one?
+<p>On the stage set by the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>, the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em> represent respectively the academic and the social reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
-</blockquote>
-<h3>Scope</h3>
-<p> The [[Holotopia:Socialized Reality|Socialized Reality]] <em>insight</em> is about the fundamental assumptions that serve as the foundation on which truth and meaning are created. It is also about a possibility that a deep change, of the foundation, may naturally lead to a sweeping change, "a great cultural revival"—as the case was during the Enlightenment.</p>
-<p>
-We look at the very foundations, that is—the fundamental assumptions, based on which truth and meaning are constructed. Being the foundations that underlie our thinking, they are not something we normally look at and think about. It is, indeed, as if those <em>foundations</em> were hidden under the ground, and now need to be escavated.</p>
-<h3>View</h3>
-<p>Without even noticing that, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the main foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been built.</p>
-<p>By conceiving our pursuit of truth and meaning as a "discovery" of bits and pieces of an "objective reality" (and thus failing to perceive truth and meaning, and information that conveys them, as an essential part of the 'machinery' of culture),  we've at once damaged our cultural heritage—<em>and</em> given the instruments of cultural creation away, to the forces of counterculture. In our present order of things <em>anything goes</em>—as long as it does not <em>explicitly</em>  contradict "the scientific worldview".</p>
-<p>While the counterculture is creating our world, the scientists are caught up in their traditional "objective observer" role...</p>
-<h3>Action</h3>
-<p>We show how a completely new <em>foundation</em> for truth and meaning can be constructed—which is independent of any myths and unverifiable assumptions. On this new <em>foundation</em>, a completely new academic and societal reality can be developed.</p>
-<p>This new <em>foundation</em> can be developed by doing no more than <em>federating</em> the information we already own.</p>
-<p>Federating knowledge means not just "connecting the dots", but also making a difference.</p>
-<h3>Federation</h3>
-<p>To show that the correspondence of our models with reality is a myth (widely held belief that cannot be rationally verified), it is sufficient to quote Einstein (as a popular icon of modern science). But since we are here talking about the very foundation stone on which our proposal has been developed, we take this <em>federation</em> quite a bit further.</p>
-<p>An essential point here is to understand "reality" as an instrument that the <em>traditional</em> culture developed to socialize us into a worldview, and its specific order of things or <em>paradigm</em>. By understanding <em>socialization</em> as a form of power play and disempowerment, we provide in effect a <em>mirror</em> which we may use to self-reflect, and see our world and our condition in a new way. The insights of Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio are here central. A variety of others are also provided.</p>
 </div> </div>
----- CLIPP
-<!--
-<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>
-<p>See this, a bit more thorough and to the point, [[Introduction to the socialized reality insight]]. </p>
----- CLIPP