Difference between revisions of "IMAGES"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Images</h1> </div>
+
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Ideograms</h1> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reimaging the Enlightenment</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1"> “We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. […] Lack of information can be very dangerous. […] But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness […].”</font><br>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Enlightening the everyday</h3>  
+
(Neil Postman in a televised interview to Open Mind, 1990)</div>  
<p>Can our society's capability to comprehend be enhanced in the degree that marked the Enlightenment?</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-6"><p>"[...] of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you", Postman continued. The question must be asked whether it is at all still <em>useful</em> to produce even more—before a <em>different</em> information process has been put in place; which will <em>complement</em> relentless production and make information <em>useful</em> to us the people and our society; and make <em><b>knowledge</b></em> <em>possible</em> again.</p>
<p>Can we experience a similar dispelling of prejudices and illusions – in our understanding of love, happiness, religion, social justice and democracy?</p>  
+
<h3>The function of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to turn information into <em>knowledge</em>.</h3>
<p>In these detailed pages of our presentation we provide food for this line of thought. </p>
+
<p>Where <em><b>knowledge</b></em> is, by definition, <em>evidence-based</em> and collectively shared and acted on; unlike <em><b>belief</b></em> (its antonym), which is also collectively shared and acted on—but it's a product of <em><b>conditioning</b></em> of various kinds, be they social or cognitive or both.</p>
<p>In the first story of Federation through [[STORIES|<em>STORIES</em>]] we show how the developments in modern physics, and in science and philosophy at large, disrupted our notions of what knowledge and pursuit of knowledge are about. The notions that the 19th century science gave our popular culture, which still persist.</p>  
+
<p>You'll comprehend these <em><b>ideograms</b></em> correctly if you see them (not as what they presently are, but) as pointing to a <em>function</em>—to be implemented in a variety of new ways with the help of new media technology. An <em><b>ideogram</b></em> can condense one thousand words into an image; and make the point of it all recognizable at a glance; and turn overloads of information into shared <em>meaning</em>; and communicate the <em><b>know-what</b></em> in a way that incites us to <em>act</em>.</p>
<p>The [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of modern science saw that what they were discovering was not only the behavior of small quanta of matter, or the social mechanisms by which the idea of reality is constructed, or the neurological mechanisms that govern awareness – but that the bare foundations of our creation of truth and meaning were emerging from the ground. </p>  
+
<h3>An <em>Ideogram</em> can communicate a <em>gestalt</em>.</h3>
<p>Having thus lost its innocence, its "objective observer" self-image, science acquired a new capability – to self-reflect. And through self-reflection to understand the limitations of its own approach to knowledge. </p>  
+
<p>And <em><b>gestalt</b></em> is (the <em><b>keyword</b></em> we use to define) what the word <em><b>informed</b></em> means. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical  example: You may know all the room temperatures and even the CO2 levels; but it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you also know <em>what to do</em>. A <em><b>gestalt</b></em> can ignite an <em>emotional</em> response; it can even change the level of adrenaline in your bloodstream.</p>  
<p>Here, in Federation through Images, we shall depict the academic and human situation that resulted – and propose how to  continue.</p>
+
<p>Our traditions have instructed us how to handle situations and contingencies by providing us a repertoire of <em><b>gestalt</b></em>-action pairs. But what about the situations that have <em>not</em> happened before?</p>  
<p>We shall see why what we've learned, and the situation we are in, empower us to extend the extent of scientific knowledge to <em>any</em> theme that matters.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>Our giant in residence</h3>
 
</div> </div>  
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>  
 
<blockquote>
 
In spite of all the fruitfulness on particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed on the matter of principles:
 
In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton's laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction.
 
</blockquote>
 
While we build on ideas of a whole generation of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], in this condensed presentation they will all be represented by a single one – Albert Einstein. Einstein will here appear in his usual role, as a modern science icon.</p> </div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="row">
+
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Postman.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Neil Postman]]</center></small></div>
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The just quoted lines from Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, where he described physics at the point when he entered it as a graduate student, around the turn of last century, will set the stage for our inquiry. It is a daring change <em>on the matter of principles</em> that made modern physics possible. We'll now see how this change can percolate further.</p></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>These images are ideograms</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Pictures that are worth one thousand words</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Not all pictures are worth one  thousand words; but these [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] are!  </p>
+
<h2>Modernity ideogram</h2>
<p>Each of them will not only summarize for us the insights of a some of the last century's most original minds – but also allow us to "stand on their shoulders" and see beyond. What we'll then be able to see is a creative frontier that their combined insights reveal; and breath-taking opportunities for contribution and achievement, both fundamental and pragmatic, that this frontier offers. </p>
+
</div> </div>  
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<span id="Mirror"></span>
 
<p>By using [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] we shall at the same time <em>demonstrate</em> big-picture science and its power. Recall that the philosophical systems of  Hegel and Husserl took thousands of <em>pages</em>! Here only a handful of [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] will prove sufficient. </p>
 
<p>Our purpose being to ignite a conversation, this concise presentation will serve us best.</p> 
 
</div></div>
 
----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Invitation to academic self-reflection</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">The Modernity ideogram explains the error that is the subject of this proposal.</font></div>
 
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Mirror ideogram</h3>
 
<p>We use this metaphorical image, of the academic [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], to point to the nature of the academic condition to which the insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy have brought us.</p>
 
<p>Just as the case was in Lewis Carrol's story from which this metaphor has been borrowed, the academic [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] will turn out to be a trapdoor into a whole <em>new</em> academic reality.</p> 
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Magical_Mirror.jpg]] <br><small><center>Mirror ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>You may imagine that every university campus has one – although we are normally much too busy to see it.</p>
 
<p>If we <em>would</em> stop and take a look, we would see in this [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] the same world that we see around us. But we would also see <em>ourselves</em>! </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Seeing ourselves in the mirror</h3>
 
<p>As a symbol, the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is an invitation to reconsider our conventional academic self-conception.</p>
 
<p>Seeing ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] symbolizes that we've understood and internalized the fact that we are not the "objective observers" we believed we were – hovering above the world, and by looking at it through the objective lense of "the scientific method", seeing it as it truly is. </p>
 
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
<span id="Closed_watch_argument"></span>
+
<span id="Modernity"></span><p>By depicting our society as a bus and our [[information|<em><b>information</b></em>]]  as its candle headlights, the Modernity ideogram renders the <em><b>gestalt</b></em> of our contemporary global situation in a nutshell.</p>  
<p>In a moment we'll give you a chance to stop and reflect. How much is our academic ethos, and culture, and our general culture, marked by this self-image that we must now grow beyond? </p>  
+
<p> [[File:Modernity.jpg]] <br><small><center>Modernity ideogram</center></small></p>
<p>And what <em>is</em> beyond?</p>  
+
<p>Imagine us as passengers in a bus—which rushes at accelerating speed through dark and uncharted terrain; toward a destination we cannot foresee; because the headlights of our bus are flagrantly inadequate for their function.</p>
<p> In just a moment we'll let you pause and think about this.</p>  
+
<p>In <em>Guided Evolution of Society</em>, in 2001, systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed a broad range of sources and reached this conclusion:</p>
<p> But before we do that, let's hear Einstein. A couple of short excerpts will suffice to see what needs to be seen. </p>  
+
<p>“We are the first generation of our species that has the privilege, the opportunity, and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed chosen people. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These are core requirements, because what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.”</p>
<p>This first one will explain why "the correspondence with reality" is a shaky foundation indeed.</p>  
+
<p>To foster the awareness of this <em>new</em> opportunity and responsibility, and develop the <em><b>information</b></em> that can provide us “evolutionary guidance”—is the challenge the Modernity ideogram is pointing to.</p>
</div></div>  
+
<h3>How could this uncanny error be made?</h3>  
 +
<p>Certainly not by people who <em>considered the options</em>; but by simply <em>inheriting</em> an illumination source—which had been created with an out-of-date technology for an entirely <em>different</em> purpose.</p>
 +
<p>I coined a pair of <em><b>keywords</b></em> to make the nature of this error precise; and defined <em><b>design</b></em> and <em><b>tradition</b></em> as a pair of antonyms pointing to two ways in which society-and-culture can evolve; and to two alternative ways to <em><b>wholeness</b></em>; and to two distinct ways being in the world: We are <em><b>traditional</b></em> when we rely on what's been inherited; and <em><b>designing</b></em> when we consider ourselves <em>accountable</em> for the <em><b>wholeness</b></em> of it all. You'll now easily comprehend the <em><b>gestalt</b></em> of our situation the Modernity ideogram points to:</p>
 +
<h3>We are no longer <em>traditional</em>; and we are not yet <em>designing</em>.</h3>  
 +
<p>Our situation is a (still unenlightened and half-hazard, and increasingly dangerous) transition from one stable order of things (or way of evolving or <em><b>paradigm</b></em>, which is no longer functional) to another (which is not yet in place).</p>
 +
<h3>The Modernity ideogram points to remedial action.</h3>
 +
<p>The way(s) we see the world can no longer be inherited from the past; it (they) must be conscientiously <em><b>designed</b></em> to serve its (their) function. <em>Different</em> information must stand between us and the world; and our very <em>relationship</em> with information must be changed thoroughly and accordingly. I use <em><b>information</b></em> as <em><b>keyword</b></em> to signify both the material artifacts that (can) serve for communication, and the processes and even the very <em>values</em> that determine how those artifacts are created and used. My call to action is to reconfigure <em><b>information</b></em> thoroughly—in the manner and the degree that the change from the candle to the lightbulb metaphor points to.</p>  
 +
</div> </div>  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h2>Information ideogram</h2></div></div>
<p><blockquote>
 
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison.</blockquote>
 
</p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">The Information ideogram shows what the socio-technical 'lightbulb' needs to be like.</font></div>
  <div class="col-md-7"><p>Einstein's second note will suggest that our reliance on "the correspondence with reality" has been a product of illusion.
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>You may already be sensing some of the effortless enthusiasm that distinguishes this proposal: We <em>can</em> solve "the huge problems now confronting us"; and we <em>do not</em> need to wrestle with "the 1%" or the politicians; the key to solutions is in <em>our</em> hands—in the hands of publicly sponsored intellectuals! The people out there look up to <em>us</em> to tell them what <em><b>information</b></em> needs to be like; and we also have <em>education</em> in our control.</p>
<blockquote>
+
<p>[[File:Information.jpg]] <br><small><center>Information ideogram</center></small></p>
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. (...) 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  this question. This  more  aristocratic  illusion  concerning  the unlimited  penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more  plebeian illusion of naïve realism, according to which things  “are” as they are perceived by us through our senses. This  illusion dominates the daily life of men and animals; it is also  the point of departure in all the sciences, especially of the  natural sciences.
+
<p>The Information ideogram is an “i”  (for "information"), composed as a circle or a <em><b>point</b></em> on top of a <em><b>rectangle</b></em>; and inscribed in a triangle representing the metaphorical <em><b>mountain</b></em>. The <em><b>rectangle</b></em> stands for a myriad of documents; and for looking at a theme from all sides; the circle stands for the <em><b>point</b></em> of it all; while the triangle or the <em><b>mountain</b></em> symbolizes a different way to conceive and structure <em><b>information</b></em>; and the resulting different way to see the world. Albert Einstein warned in an interview to The New York Times, in the aftermath of Hiroshima: “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. The Information ideogram points to (the quest for) the requisite "new type of thinking" and the <em><b>information</b></em> that will make it possible.</p>
</blockquote></p>  
+
<h3>The Information ideogram explains what <em>knowledge federation</em> means as an activity.</h3>  
<p>If the purpose of our pursuit of knowledge is to distinguish truth from illusion – how can we base it on a criterion that is impossible to verify? And which is itself based on an illusion?</p>
+
<p>Which is to complement document broadcasting by structuring and abstraction; which you'll comprehend easily if you imagine us in "information jungle"; and think of <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> as a collective walk up the metaphorical <em><b>mountain</b></em>—so that we may see where the roads are leading to; and which one we need to follow.</p>  
 
+
<p>The Information ideogram points to three kinds of abstraction:</p>  
<h3>Seeing ourselves in the world</h3>  
+
<ul>
<p>So what <em>is</em> really the purpose of our (academic) pursuit of knowledge? </p>
+
<li>The <em><b>horizontal abstraction</b></em> is represented by the <em><b>rectangle</b></em>; you may understand it if you think of projective geometry—as depicting a complex object in terms of a collection of suitably chosen projection planes; each of which presents a simple image; so that together they show us the object from all sides.</li>  
<p>Or better said – <em>what should our purpose be</em>?</p>  
+
<li>The <em><b>vertical abstraction</b></em> is represented by the <em><b>point</b></em>; you'll comprehend it if you think of going <em>up</em> a mountain and to the mountain top—from where the picture of the whole terrain is visible.</li>  
<p>The space in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is a space for academic self-reflection.</p>  
+
<li>The <em><b>structural abstraction</b></em> is represented by the <em><b>mountain</b></em>; you'll understand it if you think of the <em><b>mountain</b></em> as consisting of viewpoints; and of inspecting a hand-held object to see if it's broken or <em><b>whole</b></em> — by <em>choosing</em> several distinct ways to look.</li>  
<p>By seeing ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], we see that the self-image of objectivity (where our task is to give to the world only that which is undeniably and unshakably solid and true; and where our inherited, disciplinary procedures give us that ability, and prerogative) can no longer be rationally maintained.</p>  
+
</ul>  
<p>By seeing ourselves in the world, we see a world in dire need. We see ourselves as <em>obliged</em> to answer to our society's needs. We consider ourselves liable.</p>  
+
<h3>The Information ideogram shows <em>how</em> to respond to the creative challenge the Modernity ideogram points to.</h3>
<p>But self-reflection – however necessary it might be – is not an end in itself. It is only a beginning.</p>  
+
<p> Ole-Johan Dahl and C.A.R. Hoare wrote in <em>Structured Programming</em> in 1972, in a chapter called “Hierarchical Program Structures”:</p>
</div></div>
+
<p>“As the result of the large capacity of computing instruments, we have to deal with computing processes of such complexity that they can hardly be understood in terms of basic general purpose concepts. The limit is set by the nature of our intellect: precise thinking is possible only in terms of a small number of elements at a time. The only efficient way to deal with complicated systems is in a hierarchical fashion. The dynamic system is constructed and understood in terms of high level concepts, which are in turn constructed and understood in terms of lower level concepts, and so forth.”</p>
-----
+
<p>In Chapter Two of the <em>Liberation</em> book I introduce this new accountability through the analogy with computer programming: When in the early days of computing ambitious software projects resulted in chaos—composed of thousands of tangled up lines of code, which nobody could comprehend or correct—the solution was found in the creation of "software design methodologies"; whose creators considered themselves <em>accountable</em> for the (conceptual <em>and</em> technical) tools they gave to programmers.</p>
<div class="row">
+
<h3>We academic people too must become accountable.</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
+
<p>For the (conceptual and technical) <em><b>information</b></em> tools we give to researchers <em>and</em> to society; because it is those tools that now determine whether <em><b>information</b></em> will result in chaos—or in a new order.</p>  
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Academia quo vadis</h3>
+
<h3>The Information ideogram shows how <em>information</em> needs to be structured.</h3>
<p>So here we are! This space, in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], is exactly where we need to be. </p>  
+
<p>By depicting the <em><b>information holon</b></em>; which is <em><b>designed</b></em> to serve as a document template; as a <em>new</em> basic unit or "piece" of information. A <em><b>holon</b></em> is both a whole in itself and a piece in a larger whole. When a myriad of documents are <em><b>federated</b></em> to produce the <em><b>point</b></em>—this <em><b>point</b></em> can be used to compose a higher-order <em><b>holon</b></em>; so that <em><b>holons</b></em> can be combined into a <em><b>holarchy</b></em>—which is what the <em><b>mountain</b></em> stands for.</p>  
<p>It took us 25 centuries to come here. And so much will depend on how we'll continue!</p>  
 
<p>Let's not rush ahead. Before we continue, let us make sure we understand where we are and what exactly is going on.</p>  
 
<p>You may consider this whole website as an invitation to self-reflect in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. And to develop the academic reality on the other side.</p>  
 
<p>In Federation through  [[STORIES|<em>STORIES</em>]] we'll share the stories of four ignored [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], who each in his own way pointed to the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] and the reality beyond. </p>
 
<p>And in Federation through [[APPLICATIONS|<em>APPLICATIONS</em>]] you'll find a down-to-earth description of most <em>wonderful</em> opportunities that await in that creative realm. </p>  
 
<p>In Federation through [[CONVERSATIONS|<em>CONVERSATIONS</em>]] we'll see how our civilization's evolution, and our <em>understanding</em> of that evolution (still, of course, only in the writings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]) brought us to this turning point.</p>  
 
<p>But <em>here</em>, our theme is <em>academic</em> evolution. </p>  
 
<p>This evolution has its own logic, and its own <em>intrinsic</em> course! The academia has its own standards of excellence. Those standards have been evolving for at least 25 centuries. We cannot just turn around, we cannot just abandon them!</p>  
 
<p>Our point here is that <em>both</em> the <em>intrinsic</em> or fundamental and the <em>extrinsic</em> or pragmatic concerns are now urging us to take the single next step in the evolution of knowledge. </p>  
 
<p>What <em>is</em> that step?</p></div>
 
</div>  
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can go through!</h2></div>
 
 
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>The next step</h3>  
 
<p>This metaphorical act, of stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], points out that our quest for self-identity and purpose has a surprising, nearly magical resolution.</p>  
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>What makes this apparent violation of basic laws of nature academically possible is what Villard Van Orman Quine called  [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]].
 
<blockquote>
 
The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.
 
</blockquote>
 
If this is how the sciences progress – why not allow our knowledge work at large to progress similarly?</p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Quine.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Willard V.O. Quine]]</center></small></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Truth becomes a convention</h3>
 
<p>Truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>x</em> be... Then..." It is meaningless to question whether <em>x</em> "really is" as stated.</p>
 
<p>It is the truth by convention that makes the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] academically penetrable.</p>
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<span id="Rigor"></span>
 
<p>All manner of departures from the tradition – not only the departure from the <em>scientific</em> traditional interests and methods but also all others, including the departure from the traditional use of language (where we are obliged to inherit the meaning of words) – are made possible by truth by convention. </p>
 
<p>There is a basic convention that states this; the convention that makes all other conventions possible. We call it [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]]. </p>
 
 
<h3>Truth becomes rigorous</h3>
 
<p>It stands to reason that the foundation on which we create truth and meaning must itself be as solid as possible.</p>
 
<p>The foundation we've just outlined is that for three reasons:
 
<ul>
 
<li>It is a convention – and what's stated in that way is true by definition</li>
 
<li>It is an expression of the epistemological state-of-the-art, as represented by the writings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – their insights are simply turned into conventions</li>
 
<li>It (or more precisely the convention or [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] that defines it) is conceived as a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]]; and as all [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]], it has provisions for updating itself when new insights are reached</li>
 
</ul></p>
 
 
<h3>Knowledge becomes useful</h3>
 
<p>Just as the case is in Lewis Carrol's story, by stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] we find ourselves in an academic reality that is in many ways a reverse image of the one we've grown accustomed to.</p>
 
<p>On the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] we can <em>assign</em> a purpose to knowledge, and to our work, by stating it as a convention!</p>
 
<p>Notice that this convention is not making any claim to reality, or universality. Someone else can make <em>another</em> convention – and give knowledge a <em>different</em> purpose. </p>
 
<p>We, however, give our work the purpose we've already explained on our front page – the one pointed to by the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]], and the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]. According to this convention, knowledge is conceived of and handled simply as a means to an end – which is a well-informed post-traditional and post-industrial society. Or to be more precise or academic – as a functional element in a larger system, which is our civilization, or society or democracy... Knowledge can then be created, evaluated and used accordingly.</p>
 
<p>By creating an [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] by convention, we liberate knowledge and knowledge work from its age-old subservience to "reality" (and therewith also from the age-old traditional procedures and methods which presumably secured that knowledge would correspond with reality).</p>
 
<p>And by the same sleight of hand, we assign to knowledge <em>another</em> purpose – of helping us, contemporary people, orient ourselves in the reality we've created.</p>
 
 
<h3>Knowledge work changes sides</h3>
 
<p>By combining truth by convention with the creation of a [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] (which is an organized system of fundamental conventions), knowledge work becomes solidly established on the academic ground that Herbert Simon called "the sciences of the artificial". Those are mostly new sciences, such as computer science and economics, which do not study what objectively exists in nature but man-made things, with the goal of adapting them to their purpose.</p>
 
<p>Our [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] – by which all this is made concrete – is called [[Polyscopic Modeling]]. What we call [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] this [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] fosters. Usually, however, we simply refer to both as [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>
 
 
<h3>Knowledge federation becomes basic research</h3>
 
<p>Take a moment to savor the depth and breadth of the creative frontier that is opening up. See how thoroughly our present academic order of things is allowed to change!</p>
 
<p>When our purpose is to <em>inform</em> the people and society, then <em>we choose our questions according to relevance</em> – and <em>we answer them as well as we can</em>, making provisions, of course, for improving those answers further.</p>
 
<p>The development of methods, technical tools and social processes that can give us the knowledge we need becomes a legitimate new notion of "basic research". So do the creative steps toward the improvement of actual knowledge-work systems. </p>
 
<p>The ignored insights and calls to action of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] you'll meet in Federation through [[STORIES|<em>STORIES</em>]]  acquire academic status, and the institutional anchoring they need and deserve.</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
 
----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can liberate knowledge</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
+
<div class="col-md-7">
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Creating the way we look at the world</h3>
+
<h2>Holotopia ideogram</h2>  
 
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]] <br><small><center>Polyscopy ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<span id="Einstein-Epistemology"></span>
 
<p>The Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em> points to a way to liberate academic knowledge work, or "science", from the terminology, methods and interests of traditional disciplines. This [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] stands for the fact that once we've understood that our traditional concepts and methods are <em>human</em> creations, which both enable us to see certain things <em>and</em> hinder us from seeing others –  it becomes mandatory to <em>adapt</em> them so that we may see whatever <em>needs</em> to be seen. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>From the pen of our <em>giant</em></h3>
 
<p><blockquote>
 
Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.
 
</blockquote>
 
This, and the next quotation of our chosen [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], will give us a clue how exactly we may use the approach to knowledge we've just outlined to liberate our view of the world from disciplinary and terminological constraints. </p>
 
 
 
</div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6">
 
<blockquote>
 
I shall not hesitate to state here in a few sentences my epistemological credo. I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down in books. (…) The system of concepts is a creation of man, together with the rules of syntax, which constitute the structure of the conceptual system. (…) All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits, just as is the concept of causality, which was the point of departure for this inquiry in the first place.
 
</blockquote></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">The Holotopia ideogram depicts the new societal and cultural order of things or <em><b>paradigm</b></em> that is ready to emerge and <em>will</em> emerge—when proper 'light' has been turned on.</font></div>
 
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The <em><b>holotopia</b></em> initiative is <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em>'s proof of concept application. It is also the vision that resulted when we applied <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> to five <em><b>pivotal</b></em> categories (I qualify something as <em><b>pivotal</b></em> if it decisively influences our society's evolutionary course): <em>In each case</em>—when we <em><b>federated</b></em> what's been academically published or otherwise reported—the "conventional wisdom" had to be <em>reversed</em>.</p>  
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Generalizing science</h3>  
+
<p> [[File:Holotopia-id.jpg]] <br><small><center>Holotopia ideogram</center></small></p>
<p>Central in [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the notion of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] – which is, by definition, whatever determines what we look at and how we see it. </p>  
+
<p>The Holotopia ideogram comprises five pillars, each of which has a <em><b>pivotal</b></em> category at its base and an insight—which resulted by applying <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> to that category—at its capital. The <em><b>ten themes</b></em>—represented by the edges joining the <em><b>five insights</b></em>—point to the fact that when <em>other</em> themes (including creativity, religion, education, happiness and politics) are considered in the context of <em><b>five insights</b></em>—<em>their</em> comprehension and handling too ends up revised and reversed. </p>
<p>Building on what we've just seen, [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] generalizes the traditional-scientific approach to knowledge in two steps.</p>  
+
<p>This overarching insight resulted from this experiment; which I propose for consideration in our <em><b>dialog</b></em>:</p>  
<p>The first step is to allow for free definition of concepts and methods. This is, of course, made possible by defining them <em>by convention</em>. </p>  
+
<h3>We are not <em>informed</em>.</h3>  
<p>As you might be guessing, that's what our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] are – we have given them a specific meaning, by defining them in that way.</p>  
+
<p>Regarding the elementary <em><b>know-what</b></em>, when it comes to the themes that determine our society's evolutionary course—we do not have <em><b>knowledge</b></em>; all we have to work with is <em><b>belief</b></em>. Our comprehension and handling of the core themes of our lives and times are at the level where our comprehension of natural phenomena was in pre-scientific times.</p>  
<p>The second step is to consider also our statements or models or pieces of information as no more than – ways of looking or [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]].</p>
+
<p>The stars in Holotopia ideogram represent [[prototype|<em><b>prototypes</b></em>]]; and point to the <em><b>informed</b></em> course of <em>action</em> the <em><b>holotopia</b></em> initiative will orchestrate.</p>
<p>Just as in Einstein's "epistemological credo", in [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] too there is on the one side the human experience, which is not assumed to have any a priori form. And on the other side there are our own concepts and ideas and models. Our purpose becomes to organize experience so that it <em>sufficiently</em> fits the scope. </p>
 
<p>We refer you to the Polyscopy [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] in Federation through [[APPLICATIONS|<em>APPLICATIONS</em>]], and the links provided therein, to see how exactly this may work in practice.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>Models are scopes</h3>  
 
<p>In this way [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] offers an answer to an interesting "philosophical" question – What do we really mean when we make a claim or state a result? (This question becomes interesting when we no longer presume that we are telling how the things "really are".)</p>
 
<p>The answer provided by [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is that our statements, and models, are (by convention) just [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]], just our own created ways of looking at experience and of organizing experience. They are a way of saying "See if you can see things (also) in this way;  if this may reveal to you something that you may have overlooked."</p>  
 
<p>As Piaget pointed out, "Intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself"</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Multiple scopes are needed</h3>  
 
<p>Think about inspecting a cup you are holding in your hand, to see if it's whole or cracked. You must look at it from all sides, before you can give a conclusive answer. And if any of those points of view reveals a crack – then the cup <em>is</em> cracked!</p>  
 
<p>In [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy's</em>]] technical language we say that to acquire a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], all relevant [[aspects|<em>aspects</em>]] need to be considered.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>No experiences are excluded</h3>  
 
<p>Another consequence of this approach to knowledge is that no experience is excluded because it fails to fit into our "reality picture".</p>  
 
<p>On the contrary – since the substance of information, and of knowledge, is (by convention) human experience, then <em>all forms of experience are considered to be potentially valuable</em>. The method sketched here allows for combining a variety of heterogeneous insights and forms of experience to create a  [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] view. Examples of this are shared below.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Simplicity and clarity are in the eyes of the beholder</h3>  
 
<p>Since [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]] are human-made by convention, they can be as precise and rigorous as we desire – <em>on any level of generality</em>.</p>
 
<p>Simplicity and clarity, by convention, are "in the eyes of the beholder"; they are a consequence of our [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]! It is legitimate to make them clear and simple – even in a complex world. </p>
 
<p>This is legitimate because our models are never complete; they are never <em>the</em> reality. Anything we say is (by convention) a simplification, an angle of looking, and what that angle of looking reveals.</p>
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
 
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Descartes would agree</h3>
 
<p>The overall result is a general-purpose method which – like a portable flashlight – can be pointed at any phenomenon or issue.</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
The objective of studies needs to be to direct the mind so that it brings solid and true judgments about everything that presents itself to it.
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>René Descartes is often "credited" as the philosophical father of the limiting (reductionistic) aspects of science. This Rule 1 from his manuscript "Rules for the Direction of the Mind" (unfinished during his lifetime and published posthumously) shows that also Descartes might have preferred to be remembered as a supporter of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]].</p>
 
</div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Descartes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[René Descartes]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Growing knowledge upward</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Science on a crossroads</h3>
 
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] points to the possibility to reverse the narrow and technical focus in the sciences – and create general insights and principles about any theme that matters.</p>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Crossroads.jpg]]<br><small><center>Science on a Crossroads ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] depicts the point in the evolution of science when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not parts of the nature's inner machinery, which Newton <em>discovered</em> – but his own creation, and an approximation. Two directions of growth opened up to science – downward, and upward.  The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram suggests that only the "downward" option was followed.</p></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>The moment when this happened</h3>
 
<p>It has turned out that the very moment when science reached those crossroads has been recorded!</p>
 
<p>In his "Autobiographical Notes", after describing how the successes of science that resulted from Newton's classical results led to a wide-spread belief that there wasn't really much more than that, as we saw above, Einstein discusses on a couple of pages the anomalies, results of experiments and observed phenomena that were not amenable to such explanation. He then concludes:
 
<blockquote>Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found just about the only way possible in your age for a man of highest reasoning and creative power. The concepts that you created are even today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others further removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder
 
understanding of relationships.</blockquote></p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Why the direction "up" was ignored</h3>
 
<p>The direction "up" is a natural direction for the growth of anything – and of knowledge in particular. Hasn't the insight, the wisdom, the general principle, always been the very hallmark of knowledge? So why did science continue its growth only downward – toward more technical, more precise – and more obscure results?</p>
 
<p>The reason is obvious, and it is also suggested by Einstein: It had to be done, "if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships" – that is, of natural phenomena. They turned out to be far more complex than it was originally believed.</p>
 
<p>The bottom-level reality picture turned out to be retreating ever deeper – as the scientists aimed "at a profounder understanding of relationships".</p>
 
<p>So why not do as Newton did <em>in all walks of life</em> i.e. wherever solid knowledge is needed – create <em>approximate</em> models that serve us <em>well enough</em>? </p>
 
<p>The answer is obvious. The disciplinary organization of knowledge had already taken shape. Einstein being "a physicist", his job was to study the physical phenomena, in terms of the masses and velocities and mathematical formulas. </p>
 
<p>The job of updating the whole production of knowledge – <em>and</em> the job of creating high-level insights  –  happened to be in nobody's job description. And hence they remained undone.</p>
 
<p>Think of [[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] as a road sign or banner, demarcating the creative frontier on which this oversight can be corrected.</p>
 
</div></div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Redirecting knowledge work</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Illuminating what's hidden</h3>
 
<p>[[polyscopy|<em>Polyscopy</em>]], as we've just outlined it, is like a flexible searchlight, which can be pointed in whatever direction we choose.</p>
 
<p>The [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] provides specific criteria (in place of the traditional "correspondence with reality")  to orient the all-important choice of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (what we'll be looking at, and in what way). One of them is the [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]]. </p> 
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Perspective.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Perspective ideogram</center></small>
 
<p></p>
 
<p>The [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]] criterion postulates that every thing or issue has a visible and a hidden side. And that the purpose of knowledge work is to illuminate what is hidden, and make the whole visible in correct shape and proportions.</p>
 
<h3>Gestalt criterion</h3>
 
<p>The criterion by which [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] reorients knowledge to grow upward is [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], as we have seen on the front page.</p>
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<span id="InformationHolon"></span>
 
<p>By convention, having a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] is what "being informed" is all about. You may know the exact temperature i every room, and even the CO2 percentages in the air. But it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you know that you need to evacuate the house and call the fire brigade.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<!-- XXXXXXX -->
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation in two pictures</h2></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Information</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Information.jpg]] <br><small><center>Information ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>At the risk of oversimplifying, we may now re-introduce [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a way to correct the [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]] and acquire a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. </p>
 
<p>The [[Information ideogram]] points to the structure of the information that [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] aims to produce – which we call [[information holon|<em>information holon</em>]]. Metaphorically, it points to the principle of operation of the 'light bulb'.</p>
 
<p>The “i” in this image (which stands for "information") is composed of a circle on top of a square. Think of the square as providing the [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]]; and of the circle as depicting the [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. </p>
 
<p>The [[square|<em>square</em>]] stands for the technical and detailed [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] information. The square also stands for examining a theme or an issue from all sides. The [[circle|<em>circle</em>]] stands for the general and immediately accessible [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] information. This ideogram posits that  information must have both. </p>
 
<p>And that without the former, without the 'dot on the i', the information is incomplete and ultimately pointless.</p>
 
<p>This [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] also suggests how to establish or [[justification|<em>justify</em>]] the high-level views – by founding them on low-level ones. And by 'rounding off', by 'cutting corners'. </p></div></div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
  [[File:Holarchy.jpg]]<br><small><center>Knowledge ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>The [[Knowledge ideogram]] depicts [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a process – and also the kind of knowledge that this process aims to produce.</p>
 
<p>It follows from the fundamentals we've just outlined that (when our goal is to inform the people) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] will do its best to federate knowledge according to relevance – and adapt its choice of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] to that task. The rationale is that "the best available" knowledge will generally be better than no knowledge at all. </p>
 
<!-- ANCHOR -->
 
<span id="ConvenienceParadox"></span>
 
<p>Knowledge, and information, are envisioned to exist within a <em>holarchy</em> – where the [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]]  "pieces of information" or <em>holons</em> serve as side views for creating [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] insights. Multiple and even contradictory views on any theme are allowed to co-exist. A core function of [[knowledge federation|<em>federation</em>]] as a process is to continuously negotiate and re-evaluate the relevance and the credibility of those views.</p></div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Two examples</h2></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Convenience paradox</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Convenience_Paradox.jpg]] <br><small><center>Convenience Paradox ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>Redirecting our "pursuit of happiness" is of course a natural way to give a new direction to our 'bus'. Informing our "pursuit of happiness" is also a natural application where the ideas presented above can be put to test.</p>
 
<p>The [[Convenience Paradox ideogram]] depicts a situation where the pursuit of a more convenient direction (down) leads to an increasingly less convenient condition. The human figure in the ideogram is deciding which way to go. He wants his way (of life) to be more easy and pleasant, or more <em>convenient</em>. If he follows the direction that <em>seems</em> more convenient, he will end up in a less convenient <em>condition</em> – and vice versa. </p>
 
<p>By representing the way to happiness as yin (which stands for dark, or obscure) in the traditional yin-yang ideogram, it is suggested that the way to convenience or happiness must be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
 
<p>This ideogram is of course only the [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] part, the circle or the 'dot on the i'. Its [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] part or [[justification|<em>justification</em>]] consists of a variety of insights emanating from a broad variety of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and traditions. The rationale is to select the ones that resulted from the experience of working with large numbers of people – and which have something important to tell us about our civilized condition; and about ways in which this condition could be radically improved.</p>
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6">
 
<p><blockquote>
 
The  process  of  civilization,  according  to  Alexander,  has  contaminated man’s biological and sensory equipment, with  a resultant crippling in the responses of the whole organism.  Tension  and  conflict  are  more  and  more  substituted  for  coordination.
 
</blockquote>
 
An example is the above core insight of F. M. Alexander, the founder of a therapy school called "Alexander Technique", which is now being taught worldwide.</p>
 
</div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Alexander.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[F. M. Alexander]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The world traditions pointed to the nature of "the way" (to happiness or fulfillment, represented by the dark Yin part of the ideogram) by giving it different names such as "Tao", "Do", "Yoga", "Dharma" and "Tariqat". Considered together, they enable us to model the most interesting range of possibilities we are calling "happiness between one and plus infinity" – which is a direction in which our civilization's "progress" may most naturally continue. </p>
 
<p>We'll say more about this theme in Federation through Conversations – where we'll also initiate a conversation to collectively refine it and develop it further.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Power structure</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Power_Structure.jpg]] <br><small><center>Power Structure ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>As a way of looking at the world or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]], the [[power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] empowers us to conceive of the traditional notions of "power holder" and "political enemy" in an entirely new way – and to reorient our ethical sensibilities and our political action accordingly.</p>
 
<p>The [[Power Structure ideogram]] depicts the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] as a structure, where seemingly distinct and independent entities such as monetary or power interests, the ideas we have about the world, and our own condition or health are tied together with subtle links, so that they evolve and function in co-dependence and synchrony. </p> </div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><p>
 
In "A Century of Camps" Zygmunt Bauman explained how even massive and unthinkable cruelty (of which the Holocaust is an example) can happen as a result of no more than (what we are calling) the structure of the system – and people just "doing their jobs".</p>
 
<p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] model explains in what way exactly malignant societal structures can evolve by the conventional "survival of the fittest".</p> </div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Bauman.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Zygmunt Bauman]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>To legitimize the view in which <em>a complex structure</em> (and not a person or group endowed with intelligence and identifiable interests) is considered "the enemy", insights from a range of technical fields including combinatorial optimization, artificial intelligence and artificial life are combined with insights from the humanities – including Bauman's just mentioned one.</p>
 
<p>An effect of this model (central to the [[paradigm strategy|<em>paradigm strategy</em>]] we are presenting as our larger motivating vision) is that it entirely changes the nature of the political game, from "us against them" to "all of us against the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]". </p>
 
<p>By revealing the subtle links between our ideas about the world and power interests, the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] helps us understand further why a new phase of evolution of democracy, marked by liberation and conscious creation of the ways in which we look at the world, is a necessary part of our liberation from renegade and misdirected power.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
-----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
 
 
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>How to begin the next Renaissance</h3>
 
<p>What new insights may relish the next Renaissance-like change? What might be its battle cries?</p>
 
<p>In what way may the approach to knowledge we've just described help foster such insights?</p>
 
<p>The two examples we have just seen, described thus far rather dryly, betray exemplary answers to such questions.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Happiness and culture</h3>
 
<p>Our theme is what Peccei called "a great cultural revival" – a radical improvement of "human quality" across the board.</p>
 
<p>Presently, our "pursuit of happiness" is conspicuously steered by what Einstein branded "plebeian illusion of naïve realism" – we <em>experience</em> something as attractive, and continue to consider it as such. Not only is the power of our technology directed toward amassing such "pleasurable" things – also is the power of our information directed toward <em>reinforcing</em> this error of perception!</p>
 
<p>The Convenience Paradox [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] points to a way to correct that. The [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] it fosters is that this naïve "pursuit of happiness" is as little sensible as always going downward, because that <em>feels</em> easier.</p>
 
<p>What needs to be illuminated to correct the [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]] and reach this [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] is the long-term consequences of what we do. The <em>way</em> to happiness – and the nature of the  condition to which the way we are following is leading us.</p>
 
<p>It might be useful at this point (where we are connecting the dots) to look at the definition of [[culture|<em>culture</em>]] we presented in Federation through [[APPLICATIONS|<em>APPLICATIONS</em>]], which emphasizes <em>cultivation</em>. This definition is built on the metaphor of planting and watering a seed. Notice what this metaphor is saying between the lines: To have a culture, we cannot rely on mechanistic "scientific" explanations and reasoning (a dissection and analysis of a seed will not reveal that the seed should be planted and watered). To have a [[culture|<em>culture</em>]], we must rely on direct human experience (that certain kinds of cultivation lead to a certain effect). </p>
 
<p>In the [[justification|<em>justification</em>]] of the Convenience Paradox result a variety of insights are woven together, to show that <em>spectacularly</em> higher levels of wellbeing or "happiness" are reachable through certain kinds of cultivation.</p>
 
<p>We already own more than enough of such specific insights to reach this larger one.</p>
 
<p> Not being amenable to "scientific" explanation and interests, those insights have remained on a cultural margin called "alternative culture" – and with only a marginal effect on everyday reality.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Social justice and democracy</h3>
 
<p>The second example points to a way to redirect another powerful drive – for power. And for justice. Can the <em>zoon politikon</em> perceive his interest in a new way – and change course?</p>
 
<p>The question here is (to go straight to the point) – If all the world's power is in the hands of the powerful, in what way can the balance of power change enough for <em>structural</em> change to become possible?</p>
 
<p>The key insight here is that the "the game" (or the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] or system) determines not only who will be the winners and the losers, but also our very idea of what winning and losing is about! The  [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] as a way to looking at this issue reveals that when subtle relationships between our ideas, our wellbeing and the interests <em>of the power structure</em> we have internalized as our own – then we can in a real sense <em>choose</em> "what our purposes are to be"!</p>
 
<p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] points to pathological (cancer-like) growth of our systems. Our choice then becomes whether to be part of the disease – or the remedy.</p>
 
<p>A likely effect on our socialized notion of "success" is what the Adbusters called "decooling". Not long ago it was "cool" to smoke a big cigar in an airplane; it's not any more.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Putting the two together</h3>
 
<p>An especially enlightening effect is reached by combining the above two insights.</p>
 
<p>Their combination is found in a vivid form in the history of the world religions – where a re-discovery of the way to liberation invariably led to a new institution – and a new [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]! This is what the Liberation book (the first in Knowledge Federation trilogy) is about. While this book is being written, the Garden of Liberation [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] (in Federation through [[APPLICATIONS|<em>APPLICATIONS</em>]]) will provide the details.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Discovery of ourselves</h3>
 
<p>We are now standing in front of another [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], larger than the previous one.</p>
 
<p>How do we feel? <em>Can we feel</em> deep love, or charity or awe? <em>We</em> are the instruments on which the melody of emotion is played. </p>
 
<p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] brings a similarly shocking realization to our quest for justice – that "the enemy is us". And that our own behavior, and the values from which it stems, is the "enemy" we need to face.</p>
 
<p>All these are of course only hints. The details must be seen and digested before the hints can become guiding insights. </p>
 
<p>And yet you may <em>already</em> anticipate why also our <em>societal</em> anomalies may be resolved – unexpectedly, almost magically – by stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]!</p>  
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 14:45, 11 November 2023

“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. […] Lack of information can be very dangerous. […] But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness […].”
(Neil Postman in a televised interview to Open Mind, 1990)

"[...] of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you", Postman continued. The question must be asked whether it is at all still useful to produce even more—before a different information process has been put in place; which will complement relentless production and make information useful to us the people and our society; and make knowledge possible again.

The function of knowledge federation is to turn information into knowledge.

Where knowledge is, by definition, evidence-based and collectively shared and acted on; unlike belief (its antonym), which is also collectively shared and acted on—but it's a product of conditioning of various kinds, be they social or cognitive or both.

You'll comprehend these ideograms correctly if you see them (not as what they presently are, but) as pointing to a function—to be implemented in a variety of new ways with the help of new media technology. An ideogram can condense one thousand words into an image; and make the point of it all recognizable at a glance; and turn overloads of information into shared meaning; and communicate the know-what in a way that incites us to act.

An Ideogram can communicate a gestalt.

And gestalt is (the keyword we use to define) what the word informed means. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example: You may know all the room temperatures and even the CO2 levels; but it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you also know what to do. A gestalt can ignite an emotional response; it can even change the level of adrenaline in your bloodstream.

Our traditions have instructed us how to handle situations and contingencies by providing us a repertoire of gestalt-action pairs. But what about the situations that have not happened before?

Modernity ideogram

The Modernity ideogram explains the error that is the subject of this proposal.

By depicting our society as a bus and our information as its candle headlights, the Modernity ideogram renders the gestalt of our contemporary global situation in a nutshell.

Modernity.jpg

Modernity ideogram

Imagine us as passengers in a bus—which rushes at accelerating speed through dark and uncharted terrain; toward a destination we cannot foresee; because the headlights of our bus are flagrantly inadequate for their function.

In Guided Evolution of Society, in 2001, systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed a broad range of sources and reached this conclusion:

“We are the first generation of our species that has the privilege, the opportunity, and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed chosen people. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These are core requirements, because what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.”

To foster the awareness of this new opportunity and responsibility, and develop the information that can provide us “evolutionary guidance”—is the challenge the Modernity ideogram is pointing to.

How could this uncanny error be made?

Certainly not by people who considered the options; but by simply inheriting an illumination source—which had been created with an out-of-date technology for an entirely different purpose.

I coined a pair of keywords to make the nature of this error precise; and defined design and tradition as a pair of antonyms pointing to two ways in which society-and-culture can evolve; and to two alternative ways to wholeness; and to two distinct ways being in the world: We are traditional when we rely on what's been inherited; and designing when we consider ourselves accountable for the wholeness of it all. You'll now easily comprehend the gestalt of our situation the Modernity ideogram points to:

We are no longer traditional; and we are not yet designing.

Our situation is a (still unenlightened and half-hazard, and increasingly dangerous) transition from one stable order of things (or way of evolving or paradigm, which is no longer functional) to another (which is not yet in place).

The Modernity ideogram points to remedial action.

The way(s) we see the world can no longer be inherited from the past; it (they) must be conscientiously designed to serve its (their) function. Different information must stand between us and the world; and our very relationship with information must be changed thoroughly and accordingly. I use information as keyword to signify both the material artifacts that (can) serve for communication, and the processes and even the very values that determine how those artifacts are created and used. My call to action is to reconfigure information thoroughly—in the manner and the degree that the change from the candle to the lightbulb metaphor points to.

Information ideogram

The Information ideogram shows what the socio-technical 'lightbulb' needs to be like.

You may already be sensing some of the effortless enthusiasm that distinguishes this proposal: We can solve "the huge problems now confronting us"; and we do not need to wrestle with "the 1%" or the politicians; the key to solutions is in our hands—in the hands of publicly sponsored intellectuals! The people out there look up to us to tell them what information needs to be like; and we also have education in our control.

Information.jpg

Information ideogram

The Information ideogram is an “i” (for "information"), composed as a circle or a point on top of a rectangle; and inscribed in a triangle representing the metaphorical mountain. The rectangle stands for a myriad of documents; and for looking at a theme from all sides; the circle stands for the point of it all; while the triangle or the mountain symbolizes a different way to conceive and structure information; and the resulting different way to see the world. Albert Einstein warned in an interview to The New York Times, in the aftermath of Hiroshima: “A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. The Information ideogram points to (the quest for) the requisite "new type of thinking" and the information that will make it possible.

The Information ideogram explains what knowledge federation means as an activity.

Which is to complement document broadcasting by structuring and abstraction; which you'll comprehend easily if you imagine us in "information jungle"; and think of knowledge federation as a collective walk up the metaphorical mountain—so that we may see where the roads are leading to; and which one we need to follow.

The Information ideogram points to three kinds of abstraction:

  • The horizontal abstraction is represented by the rectangle; you may understand it if you think of projective geometry—as depicting a complex object in terms of a collection of suitably chosen projection planes; each of which presents a simple image; so that together they show us the object from all sides.
  • The vertical abstraction is represented by the point; you'll comprehend it if you think of going up a mountain and to the mountain top—from where the picture of the whole terrain is visible.
  • The structural abstraction is represented by the mountain; you'll understand it if you think of the mountain as consisting of viewpoints; and of inspecting a hand-held object to see if it's broken or whole — by choosing several distinct ways to look.

The Information ideogram shows how to respond to the creative challenge the Modernity ideogram points to.

Ole-Johan Dahl and C.A.R. Hoare wrote in Structured Programming in 1972, in a chapter called “Hierarchical Program Structures”:

“As the result of the large capacity of computing instruments, we have to deal with computing processes of such complexity that they can hardly be understood in terms of basic general purpose concepts. The limit is set by the nature of our intellect: precise thinking is possible only in terms of a small number of elements at a time. The only efficient way to deal with complicated systems is in a hierarchical fashion. The dynamic system is constructed and understood in terms of high level concepts, which are in turn constructed and understood in terms of lower level concepts, and so forth.”

In Chapter Two of the Liberation book I introduce this new accountability through the analogy with computer programming: When in the early days of computing ambitious software projects resulted in chaos—composed of thousands of tangled up lines of code, which nobody could comprehend or correct—the solution was found in the creation of "software design methodologies"; whose creators considered themselves accountable for the (conceptual and technical) tools they gave to programmers.

We academic people too must become accountable.

For the (conceptual and technical) information tools we give to researchers and to society; because it is those tools that now determine whether information will result in chaos—or in a new order.

The Information ideogram shows how information needs to be structured.

By depicting the information holon; which is designed to serve as a document template; as a new basic unit or "piece" of information. A holon is both a whole in itself and a piece in a larger whole. When a myriad of documents are federated to produce the point—this point can be used to compose a higher-order holon; so that holons can be combined into a holarchy—which is what the mountain stands for.

Holotopia ideogram

The Holotopia ideogram depicts the new societal and cultural order of things or paradigm that is ready to emerge and will emerge—when proper 'light' has been turned on.

The holotopia initiative is knowledge federation's proof of concept application. It is also the vision that resulted when we applied knowledge federation to five pivotal categories (I qualify something as pivotal if it decisively influences our society's evolutionary course): In each case—when we federated what's been academically published or otherwise reported—the "conventional wisdom" had to be reversed.

Holotopia-id.jpg

Holotopia ideogram

The Holotopia ideogram comprises five pillars, each of which has a pivotal category at its base and an insight—which resulted by applying knowledge federation to that category—at its capital. The ten themes—represented by the edges joining the five insights—point to the fact that when other themes (including creativity, religion, education, happiness and politics) are considered in the context of five insightstheir comprehension and handling too ends up revised and reversed.

This overarching insight resulted from this experiment; which I propose for consideration in our dialog:

We are not informed.

Regarding the elementary know-what, when it comes to the themes that determine our society's evolutionary course—we do not have knowledge; all we have to work with is belief. Our comprehension and handling of the core themes of our lives and times are at the level where our comprehension of natural phenomena was in pre-scientific times.

The stars in Holotopia ideogram represent prototypes; and point to the informed course of action the holotopia initiative will orchestrate.