Difference between revisions of "IMAGES"
m |
|||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>We can liberate knowledge and creativity from the disciplinary straitjackets.</h4></div> | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>We can liberate knowledge and creativity from the disciplinary straitjackets.</h4></div> | ||
− | <div class="col-md-5"><p>The first reversal on the other side of the metaphorical Mirror is of the way the language and the method are | + | <div class="col-md-5"><p>The first reversal on the other side of the metaphorical Mirror is of the way the language and the method are handled.</p> |
<p>To see what we are talking about, let us briefly revisit our conventional approach: To obtain an academic license, we are <em>disciplined</em> to adhere to the language and the methods of an established academic discipline (by becoming "philosophy doctors"). We are then instructed to look at the world with the attitude of impartial, disinterested or "objective" observers. The rationale is that we then become able to depict the world as it truly is.</p> | <p>To see what we are talking about, let us briefly revisit our conventional approach: To obtain an academic license, we are <em>disciplined</em> to adhere to the language and the methods of an established academic discipline (by becoming "philosophy doctors"). We are then instructed to look at the world with the attitude of impartial, disinterested or "objective" observers. The rationale is that we then become able to depict the world as it truly is.</p> | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>We can <em>create</em> concepts and methods.</h4></div> | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>We can <em>create</em> concepts and methods.</h4></div> | ||
− | <div class="col-md-9"><p>To see the extent and the depth of change, consider the present-day academic value matrix: The most valued work, the so-called "basic research", is the study of the mechanisms of nature <em>by using the standaredized disciplinary terminology and procedures</em>. But does this really make sense on the other side of the Mirror? This reversal introduces a whole new dimension of possibilities, where we are allowed to and encouraged to be creative on the level of concepts and method. And where even the re-creation of the conventional routines is considered a NEW notion of "basic research".</p></div> | + | <div class="col-md-9"><p>To see the extent and the depth of change, consider the present-day academic value matrix: The most valued work, the so-called "basic research", is the study of the mechanisms of nature <em>by using the standaredized disciplinary terminology and procedures</em>. But does this really make sense on the other side of the Mirror? This reversal introduces a whole new dimension of possibilities, where we are allowed to and encouraged to be creative on the level of concepts and method. And where even the re-creation of the conventional routines is considered a NEW notion of "basic research".</p> |
+ | |||
+ | <p>Isn't that what we've been showing all along? And isn't that in essence the new frontier our readers are being invited to develop? Don't be deceived by the informal "raggedy" language we are speaking – the work we are doing to establish this frontier is academically thorough in the best old-fasioned academic sense...</div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 187: | Line 189: | ||
<div class="col-md-5"><p>The second reversal is of the direction in which knowledge is growing.</p> | <div class="col-md-5"><p>The second reversal is of the direction in which knowledge is growing.</p> | ||
− | <p> The vertical axis and the direction "up" have a distinguished role in <em>polyscopy</em>. | + | <p>To see what we are talking about, consider the familiar orientation on technical work and details in the sciences. Consider the focus of media informing on events – however insignificant... The point is that both are "reality" – and isn't that what good knowledge and knowledge work are about?"</p> |
+ | |||
+ | <p> The vertical axis and the direction "up" have a distinguished role in <em>polyscopy</em>. A characteristic result of pursuing this direction is a general insight, principle, rule of thumb... Think of walking up a mountain. What we see down below is the forests, but not the trees. From this venture point we become able to see where the ways are leading to, and choose the one we might want to follow. Later, when we descend from the mountain, we acquire again the more detailed view, which we need to be able to navigate the chosen way.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>There's an obvious reason why the direction "down" has acquired prominence: It is <em>there</em> that the presumed "bottom-level reality" is to be found!</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>In contrast to that, it is by pursuing the direction "up" that we find insights, values, new opinions... and in a word – culture! "Up" is the domain of artistic expression...</p> | ||
<p>The Science on a Crossroads ideogram depicts the point when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not a discovery of the inner workings of nature, but his own creation and an approximation. Two directions of development opened up to science. One direction was to to develop science "downward" – away from daily-life and even intuitive concepts and concerns, and toward greater rigor, precision and detail. The other direction, "upward", was to do in all walks of life what Newton did in physics – create approximate but precise enough concepts and models, which can vastly improve our understanding of <em>new</em> issues, and suitably redirect our action. The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram is there to indicate that only the former option was followed. And that the result of pursuing this direction "to the limit" was that both science and scientists became 'smaller'. </p></div> | <p>The Science on a Crossroads ideogram depicts the point when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not a discovery of the inner workings of nature, but his own creation and an approximation. Two directions of development opened up to science. One direction was to to develop science "downward" – away from daily-life and even intuitive concepts and concerns, and toward greater rigor, precision and detail. The other direction, "upward", was to do in all walks of life what Newton did in physics – create approximate but precise enough concepts and models, which can vastly improve our understanding of <em>new</em> issues, and suitably redirect our action. The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram is there to indicate that only the former option was followed. And that the result of pursuing this direction "to the limit" was that both science and scientists became 'smaller'. </p></div> | ||
Line 252: | Line 260: | ||
----- | ----- | ||
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
− | <div class="col-md-3"><h4> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>We can value creative work differently; we can give it a whole new purpose.</h4></div> |
<div class="col-md-5"><p>The third and last reversal is of the purpose of creative work, and of the underlying valuation or [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]].</p> | <div class="col-md-5"><p>The third and last reversal is of the purpose of creative work, and of the underlying valuation or [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]].</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>To see what we are talking about, consider once again the present state of affairs: That the most valued academic work consists in looking at the world "in the light of the candles" (traditional disciplines; which, as Whorf suggested, might be seen as "plagiarizing the past" of science. ... </p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <p>But there's a positive, and hugely valuable message of this ideogram – that there is a RADICALLY better way to direct creative work!</p> | ||
<p>The Modernity ideogram represents the turning point – the point of departure of the emerging paradigm. It is both an ideographic representation of a <em>gestalt</em> – and hence of a result; and also a definition of a new direction, a specification of an epistemology.</p> | <p>The Modernity ideogram represents the turning point – the point of departure of the emerging paradigm. It is both an ideographic representation of a <em>gestalt</em> – and hence of a result; and also a definition of a new direction, a specification of an epistemology.</p> | ||
Line 270: | Line 282: | ||
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>The way se are creative can be much more meaningfully directed.</h4></div> | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>The way se are creative can be much more meaningfully directed.</h4></div> | ||
− | <div class="col-md-9"><p> | + | <div class="col-md-9"><p>This is a large and centrally important theme... So here's a brief clue: Consider what the bus represents; it's ALL all our creative efforts, through the ages, put together; it's our civilization; it's what will take us into the future... Consider the headlights: They are a tiny piece in the context of it all. And yet the value of it all – whether it will be a mass suicide device or a vehicle taking us where we may reasonably want to be – will be determined by that one tiny piece! THE POINT: As long as we just use our creativity in an undirected and uninformed way (by following the disciplinary habits, or THE MARKET), we are not at all likely to replace those candles. And that's why we <em>didn't</em> replace them! So the Modernity ideogram is pointing to a task at hand, a piece of modernization we have somehow incredibly forgotten (in the Age of Information!)- to modernize our information. And on a much larger scale – to modernize creative work (make it conscious and purposeful and informed and rationally or reasonably directed)...</p> |
+ | |||
+ | <p>Production <em>and</em> consumption become informed (or guided). This opens up most wonderful new ways for creating both things <em>and</em> information!</p> | ||
<p>And then there's the epistemology, the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] as we call it. Notice the good situation we are in: We have liberated ourselves from the old epistemology (where we are obliged to learn 'the technique of Old Masters' and use it to depict the world as it 'truly is' – to use a metaphor from the world of the arts, which marks the transition to "modern art"). We are in a convention-making space – we can make any convention we like about what information and knowledge are all about, and what values we want to use to esteem and prioritize knowledge work. And so what the Modernity ideogram is saying is – yes, we need to recreate those 'headlights'. That task must be given highest priority. We cannot just continue using our inherited ways... But there's a subtler and deeper message here as well – and that's the key to the new epistemology: It is that (1) information, and knowledge, have a key role to perform in our society... So we have a whole new 'puzzle' – not the traditional 'reality puzzle' of traditional disciplines, but a much more timely 'puzzle' – how to make a knowledge work that turns us into an informed society? So that the democracy may function (lead to choices and direction that are wise and beneficial). So that we may truly benefit from innovation or creative work. </p> | <p>And then there's the epistemology, the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] as we call it. Notice the good situation we are in: We have liberated ourselves from the old epistemology (where we are obliged to learn 'the technique of Old Masters' and use it to depict the world as it 'truly is' – to use a metaphor from the world of the arts, which marks the transition to "modern art"). We are in a convention-making space – we can make any convention we like about what information and knowledge are all about, and what values we want to use to esteem and prioritize knowledge work. And so what the Modernity ideogram is saying is – yes, we need to recreate those 'headlights'. That task must be given highest priority. We cannot just continue using our inherited ways... But there's a subtler and deeper message here as well – and that's the key to the new epistemology: It is that (1) information, and knowledge, have a key role to perform in our society... So we have a whole new 'puzzle' – not the traditional 'reality puzzle' of traditional disciplines, but a much more timely 'puzzle' – how to make a knowledge work that turns us into an informed society? So that the democracy may function (lead to choices and direction that are wise and beneficial). So that we may truly benefit from innovation or creative work. </p> |
Revision as of 09:26, 31 July 2018
Contents
- 1 Federation through Images
- 1.1 Not all images are worth one thousand words.
- 1.2 – Eppur si muove!
- 1.3 Our ideas of what constitutes "good" knowledge and "good" academic work, which have been evolving since antiquity, during the past century underwent a thorough revision.
- 1.4 – On every university campus there is a Mirror.
- 1.5 – Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
- 1.6 The belief that our ideas correspond with reality is a common result of illusion.
- 1.7 – [The] flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.
- 1.8 An up-to-date foundation for creating truth and meaning can be developed by relying on truth by convention.
- 1.9 We can liberate knowledge and creativity from the disciplinary straitjackets.
- 1.10 We can create concepts and methods.
- 1.11 Multiple ways of looking can be more useful than a one-way "reality picture".
- 1.12 We can broaden the scientific method; we can make it applicable to any question or issue.
- 1.13 – 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.
- 1.14 We can turn Einstein's "epistemological credo" into a convention.
- 1.15 – Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
- 1.16 – The nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science which formed not only science but also the general outlook of great masses of people.
- 1.17 – It needs but half an eye to see in these latter days that science, the Grand Revelator of modern Western culture, has reached, without having intended to, a frontier.
- 1.18 – 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.
- 1.19 Knowledge can grow upward.
- 1.20 – Enough of this. Newton, forgive me...
- 1.21 Why knowledge grows downward
- 1.22 Why knowledge must grow upward
- 1.23 Our needs have changed.
- 1.24 How to help knowledge grow up.
- 1.25 We can value creative work differently; we can give it a whole new purpose.
- 1.26 The way we direct our creative skills is not sustainable.
- 1.27 The way se are creative can be much more meaningfully directed.
- 1.28 – It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course.
- 1.29 – The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it.
- 1.30 – We are riding a common economic-political vehicle....
- 1.31 – 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.
- 1.32 We can reinvent the light bulb.
- 1.33 We can redirect the pursuit of happiness.
- 1.34 The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises is the most impactful way to intervene.
- 1.35 See
- 1.36
- 1.37
Federation through Images
Not all images are worth one thousand words.
But the ideograms are! They play a similar role in knowledge federation as mathematical formulas do in traditional science. An ideogram can condense a wealth of insights and many pages of text into an image whose message can be recognized at a glance. Recall the Newton's formula, or Einstein's ubiquitous E=mc² – those too are ideograms! But the possibilities behind the ideographic approach are endless and vastly surpass the conventional maths. Those possibilities vastly surpass also our illustrations; they are yet to be developed through creative use of new media.
– Eppur si muove!
Be aware that what we are talking about is not at all "of philosophical interest" (only). To see why, think about the world of the Late Middle Ages: never-ending wars, horrifying epidemics, infamous Inquisition trials... It appeared that the end of the world was near. Bring to mind the iconic image of Galilei in house prison, a century after Copernicus, whispering "Eppur si muove!" into his beard. The problems of the day were not solved by focusing on those problems, but by a slow and steady development of a whole new approach to knowledge. Several centuries of unprecedented progress followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?
Our ideas of what constitutes "good" knowledge and "good" academic work, which have been evolving since antiquity, during the past century underwent a thorough revision.
No rational person will claim that knowledge should not be useful. And yet there are good reasons why practical skills such as cooking and automobile repair have not been admitted to the university. (At the University of Oslo, where this website is hosted, even design and architecture have not been allowed to enter.) Since antiquity our ideas of what constitutes good knowledge and good knowledge work have been evolving, and they now find their foremost expression in science and philosophy.
We are about to see that the 20th century developments in science and philosophy point to a possibility for entirely new academic standards of value and excellence. When lifted up from the sea of glut and combined together, those vital new insights empower a new approach to truth and meaning – which is both solidly and rigorously founded and attuned to contemporary needs of people and society.
– On every university campus there is a Mirror.
We use the metaphor of the magical mirror (or more simply and humbly just "Mirror") to mark the entry point to an emerging and vibrantly novel approach to knowledge (which we may also call a paradigm, an alternate academic reality, a creative frontier, or a way to create truth and meaning). The Mirror here symbolizes the various insights reached in 20th century's science and philosophy, which challenged the age-old ideas regarding the nature of information and knowledge – and in particular, and most importantly, the idea that whatever knowledge work we have gives us an access to reality as it really is, and that we must stick to it if our knowledge work – and in particular academic work – should be good and solid.
"When we see ourselves in the Mirror", reads the explanation of this ideogram, "we see the same world that we see around us. But we also see ourselves in the world. We then realize that we are not the objective observes we believed we were. We are in the world! When we see ourselves in the Mirror, we recognize that it is us, humans, who have created the scientific method and the ethos of the disciplines. And that it is us, academics, who are creating the world we see around us, by looking at it in a certain way, and by instructing others to see it in that way." When we see ourselves in the Mirror, we begin to feel responsible for the world – for the way we look at the world.
As the case is in Louis Carroll's familiar story from which the mirror metaphor has been borrowed, it is possible to walk right through the magical mirror. And when one does, one finds himself in an entirely different academic reality. As in the story, this new reality is in a number of ways a reverse image of the reality we've grown accustomed to – more free and creative, and at the same time more solid and responsible, than the reality we're accustomed to.
Knowledge federation is a model or a prototype of that new creative reality.
– Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
There are far too many giants on whose shoulders we might want to stand to more clearly see the Mirror. Hence we here represent them by a single one, Albert Einstein. Also elsewhere on these pages Einstein appears in the role of an icon, representing "modern science". "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world," Einstein and Infeld wrote in Evolution of Physics. "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."
The belief that our ideas correspond with reality is a common result of illusion.
What we've just seen was 'modern science' telling us that "correspondence with reality" is a criterion that cannot be verified. What we're about to see next is 'modern science' telling us that the common conviction that our ideas correspond with reality is a common result of illusion: "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.”
If our aim is to distinguish what is "really true" from illusion – how can we rely on a criterion that is impossible to verify? And which is itself a result of illusion?
– [The] flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.
"We are not discovering an objectively true picture of reality. We are constructing (an approximate representation of) reality". This conclusion, which we are calling the constructivist credo, follows from the results reached in a broad variety of disciplines (physics, biology of perception, cognitive science, linguistics, sociology, philosophy...). It is also an epistemological position that was upheld explicitly or implicitly by the 20th century's giants.
This epistemological position has a problem. When the constructivist credo is placed into a system of thought where "truth" means "correspondence with reality", and where each statement is supposed to be about reality, the result is a paradox.
But there is a solution. It is what Willard Van Orman Quine called truth by convention. Truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let x be... Then..." It is meaningless to ask whether x "really is" as stated. In "Truth by Convention", Quine argued that "every science" progresses from an assumption of mutual understanding and of the reality of shared concepts, to realizing that this assumption does not hold, and then resorting to explicit definition by convention.
So why not allow the creation of truth and meaning in general to progress similarly?
An up-to-date foundation for creating truth and meaning can be developed by relying on truth by convention.
A practical way to do that is to spell out the rules – specify the underlying assumptions by stating them as a convention. We call such a convention a methodology. We have done the exercise; the result is a prototype called Polyscopic Modeling. The knowledge work (epistemology, methods, information formats, results, insights...) that results from applying this methodology we called polyscopy. We often use this shorter and simpler keyword also for the methodology itself.
You may now imagine knowledge federation as a liberated academic territory, which is made available and at the same time separated from the conventional academic reality by the metaphorical Mirror. By stepping through, we are liberated from the reification that "science" means what the scientists have been doing for centuries. Science has acquired a pivotal role in our society, of providing reliable and relied on or "good" knowledge. And even of defining for us what "good" knowledge is. Just as our great predecessor did, who made science great, on the other side of the Mirror we are invited to revisit those core questions and find new answers – by weaving together the new fundamental insights, new societal needs and the new capabilities of information technology.
As a prototype or model of the academic or more generally creative frontier on the other side of the Mirror, knowledge federation will serve us to point to the frontier, strike a conversation about the future of knowledge and of creative work in general, and initiate real-life developments. Knowledge Federation is a prototype of a new institution, the transdiscipline, which is capable of developing the knowledge federation praxis. The task of Knowledge Federation is to add to the conventional creative work the capability to re-create itself.
We can liberate knowledge and creativity from the disciplinary straitjackets.
The first reversal on the other side of the metaphorical Mirror is of the way the language and the method are handled.
To see what we are talking about, let us briefly revisit our conventional approach: To obtain an academic license, we are disciplined to adhere to the language and the methods of an established academic discipline (by becoming "philosophy doctors"). We are then instructed to look at the world with the attitude of impartial, disinterested or "objective" observers. The rationale is that we then become able to depict the world as it truly is.
The reversal pointed to by this ideogram is so thorough and so germane to polyscopy that we are calling the ideogram the Polyscopy ideogram. Our design team simplified this ideogram by deleting the eye that was originally on the left-hand side of each of the conic tubes, to suggest that they represent "ways of looking" or scopes. The idea, represented by the ideogram, is that when we've identified the language and methods of scientific disciplines as something that limits what we are able to see, it becomes natural to make adjustments so that we may see more, and see what needs to be seen. In the creative space on the other side of the Mirror, this is enabled by allowing for the concepts and methods, and even for the fundamental assumptions and values which orient and determine what we do, to be defined by convention.
This reversal empowers us to once again be creative on the level on which the great forefathers of science were creative – instead of turning their methods into an orthodoxy, and repeating them forever.
We can create concepts and methods.
To see the extent and the depth of change, consider the present-day academic value matrix: The most valued work, the so-called "basic research", is the study of the mechanisms of nature by using the standaredized disciplinary terminology and procedures. But does this really make sense on the other side of the Mirror? This reversal introduces a whole new dimension of possibilities, where we are allowed to and encouraged to be creative on the level of concepts and method. And where even the re-creation of the conventional routines is considered a NEW notion of "basic research".
Isn't that what we've been showing all along? And isn't that in essence the new frontier our readers are being invited to develop? Don't be deceived by the informal "raggedy" language we are speaking – the work we are doing to establish this frontier is academically thorough in the best old-fasioned academic sense...</div> </div>
Multiple ways of looking can be more useful than a one-way "reality picture".
We can broaden the scientific method; we can make it applicable to any question or issue.
<p>The Polyscopic Modeling methodology is conceived as a prototype of a general-purpose methodology – it allows us to create or federate insights and ideas about any subject, and at any level of generality or abstraction. Instead of choosing our subject of study according to the habitual areas of interest and language and method of a discipline, we become free to direct our attention and to prioritize our interests by other concern, notably by their relevance to knowledge work, and to society. What new themes, what types of insights and results are thereby made possible? The polyscopy prototype elaborates the various consequences of this more creative and more responsible or responsive approach to creative work in quite a bit of detail.</p>
<p>Similarly, knowledge federation is conceived as a set of technologies and technology-enabled social processes that allow even contradictory ideas to co-exist in the same knowledge-work space. As a prototype, it is a continuously evolving set of practices and social processes, which amount to "collective thinking". The veracity, relevance and compatibility of the stated ideas are continuously brought into relationships, re-evaluated and re-negotiated.</p>– 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.
We can turn Einstein's "epistemological credo" into a convention.
<p>The point of departure of polyscopy is to turn Einstein's "epistemological credo" into a convention. Why? Because it is by spelling out the underlying assumptions that we can create a solid basis for changing the rules, the values and the practices as well. And also because by making experience rather than "reality" (as "reflected" by the repertoire of results in the traditional sciences) be the ultimate ground on which the veracity and the value of an insight will rely, we become able to "prove" or as we prefer to say justify models in all walks of life – simply by showing that they are consistent with human experience.</p>
<p>Experience can – and does – take very many forms. All of them count. The procedure (whose details are provided in the documents linked below) for establishing a claim as trustworthy or "true" is a combination of the traditional scientific method and the trial by jury. As the experience with polyscopy shows, this democratizes the truth and meaning profoundly, and opens up to some most interesting cultural and other consequences – ultimately enabling us to aim toward the large and sweeping societal paradigm shift. </p>– Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
– The nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science which formed not only science but also the general outlook of great masses of people.
<p>The most important change? Heisenberg is not talking only about the limitations of the scientific language (however important the language might be), but about the evolution of our culture, including our values and way of being in the world – which of course determine the course our civilization has taken, and our future. We have made an error, says Heisenberg, in spite of our best intentions, and for understandable and justifiable reasons. We have given the people a narrow, excluding worldview that damaged some of the most vital parts of our culture. Fortunately, we are now in the position to correct that error, because science has discovered the error, it has proven that "the rigid frame" was wrong. </p>
<p> Let us highlight here what may be obvious, because this consequence of Heisenberg's 1958 insight is far too important to be missed: We have an obligation to correct this error.</p>– It needs but half an eye to see in these latter days that science, the Grand Revelator of modern Western culture, has reached, without having intended to, a frontier.
– 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.
Knowledge can grow upward.
<p>To see what we are talking about, consider the familiar orientation on technical work and details in the sciences. Consider the focus of media informing on events – however insignificant... The point is that both are "reality" – and isn't that what good knowledge and knowledge work are about?"</p>
<p> The vertical axis and the direction "up" have a distinguished role in polyscopy. A characteristic result of pursuing this direction is a general insight, principle, rule of thumb... Think of walking up a mountain. What we see down below is the forests, but not the trees. From this venture point we become able to see where the ways are leading to, and choose the one we might want to follow. Later, when we descend from the mountain, we acquire again the more detailed view, which we need to be able to navigate the chosen way.</p>
<p>There's an obvious reason why the direction "down" has acquired prominence: It is there that the presumed "bottom-level reality" is to be found!</p>
<p>In contrast to that, it is by pursuing the direction "up" that we find insights, values, new opinions... and in a word – culture! "Up" is the domain of artistic expression...</p>
<p>The Science on a Crossroads ideogram depicts the point when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not a discovery of the inner workings of nature, but his own creation and an approximation. Two directions of development opened up to science. One direction was to to develop science "downward" – away from daily-life and even intuitive concepts and concerns, and toward greater rigor, precision and detail. The other direction, "upward", was to do in all walks of life what Newton did in physics – create approximate but precise enough concepts and models, which can vastly improve our understanding of new issues, and suitably redirect our action. The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram is there to indicate that only the former option was followed. And that the result of pursuing this direction "to the limit" was that both science and scientists became 'smaller'. </p>– Enough of this. Newton, forgive me...
Why knowledge grows downward
<p>
A long story made very short (but the long story is important, and we offer it to this conversation it in the documents pointed to below) – the answer must be sought in the peculiar way in which science federates knowledge. Indeed, the traditional science too may be understood as a specific way to federate knowledge – by completing a coherent representation of the basic mechanism of nature, how it all works, and by explaining how the observed phenomena follow as a consequence. This approach, this way of exploring the world, was initially so successful, that it naturally acquired a highest status and became standard! But then something unexpected happened! The insight that compelled an impressive array of giants to speak out (Einstein in Autobiographical Notes; Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy; Oppenheimer in Uncommon Sense; Feynman in The Character of Physical Law...) – is that the results of this approach to truth and knowledge were sufficiently developed, the result was a disproof of the original assumptions.</p>Why knowledge must grow upward
<p>There are three kinds of disadvantages of the traditional-scientific approach to knowledge (federation):
- Evidence goes against the assumption that the underlying model will eventually be completed (there are good reasons to believe that it cannot). Let's leave a proper analysis for another occasion and provide only two hints: (1) the nature is not a mechanism (that's essentially the message that modern physics has given us...); (2) the splitting of the atom is a good metaphor for this situation: the etymological meaning of "atom" is "indivisible" – it was supposed to be the ultimate particle of matter in terms of which the larger things could be described. So when the molecules and atoms were scientifically discovered, the scientists naturally said "well, here it is!" But the atom did get divided – first into electrons, protons and neutrons, and with time into more than one hundred "subatomic particles". Today the atom is Humpty Dumpty that nobody can put back together again... Our causal explanation of "how it all works" turned out to be retreating downwards, just when it appeared to be within our grip...
- The second reason is complexity – understood now in several ways including complex dynamic systems, computational complexity... The point here is that even if we could create a complete model, the interesting consequences would not follow from it; they would probably not even be computable from its mathematical description.
- And finally and most importantly – the knowledge we now most urgently and even vitally need is not at all of the "how it all works" kind; and this knowledge will not come into being even if we did find a complete representation of how it all works, and computed its consequences...
</p>
<p> Revisiting Einstein's Autobiographical Notes will give us some additional insights. Einstein describes how the classical science, and specifically the Newton's Laws, turned out to be so successful in explaining the natural phenomena, that it became natural to believe that all of nature would soon be understood in a similarly clear and predictable way, just as we might understand the workings of a clockwork. And when it turned out that the things were not at all that simple, at that point the division and organization of the academic or more generally creative work had already taken place. Einstein, naturally, considered himself "a physicist". Following the other direction was nobody's job!</p>
<p> Notice that what we are talking about is not only a matter of high practical importance, but also a deeper issue of the academic self-perception and self-identity, which is the core theme pointed to by the Mirror. At this deeper level, those two directions of growth represent two ways of defining what "good" knowledge and "good" knowledge work represent. One means doing what Newton did – namely modeling physical phenomena in terms of "physics concepts" such as mass, velocity etc. The other means allowing ourselves to do as Newton did – and create concepts and methods to model, approximately but precisely enough, whatever under the Sun may need our (that is, people's) attention and understanding.
</p>Our needs have changed.
How to help knowledge grow up.
<p>But this whole page is largely a hint, which attempts to be sufficiently detailed to at least give an idea of the interesting substance. So let us do that here with polyscopy. There are several points – and we leave it as a challenge to the reader to see how all this fits into a coherent whole (a methodology, and a paradigm). (1) The stated and anyhow reasonable goal (as we shall see in more detail below) is to provide knowledge according to contemporary needs of people and society. This in itself is a reversal: Instead of believing that our highest goal, our "very best" knowledge, are facts that are "absolutely true" (which, we believe, we can achieve by adhering to the traditional-scientific procedures), we accept (make it a convention) that we the people simply need answers to certain questions. We then take it as our aim to answer those questions as well as we can – while making provisions for improving both those answers and the procedures which we use to create the answers. (2) Polyscopy enables the creation of high-level information by treating all knowledge the same: Our models are man-made "ways of looking"; and there's experience (which here is the common denominator for experience of all kinds, not only the experience that comes from a laboratory). Our aim then is to make models that in most useful ways represent what is relevant in experience. (3) Knowledge federation as a process is the social process that negotiates the meaning between different models, finds the ones that are most credible, makes sure that the insights are reaching the "cells and organs" in the "social organism" where they are needed, and that the insights are acted upon. (4) Knowledge Federation is the new institution (transdiscipline) whose job is to make sure that all this is done in a way that reflects the relevant knowledge in various fields. </p>
<p>Polyscopy provides a methodology, which includes suitable criteria and keywords. The notion of gestalt has here a central role. The gestalt is our interpretation of a situation (and importantly of the situation we are in), which points to a correct course of action. "Our house is on fire" is a textbook example. By definition (i.e. by convention), having a correct gestalt is what "being informed" is about. Knowledge federation provides suitable methods and social processes by which this goal can be achieved – examples of which are presented on this website. A more comprehensive account of the methods and further examples can be found in the linked documents. </p>We can value creative work differently; we can give it a whole new purpose.
<p>To see what we are talking about, consider once again the present state of affairs: That the most valued academic work consists in looking at the world "in the light of the candles" (traditional disciplines; which, as Whorf suggested, might be seen as "plagiarizing the past" of science. ... </p>
<p>But there's a positive, and hugely valuable message of this ideogram – that there is a RADICALLY better way to direct creative work!</p>
<p>The Modernity ideogram represents the turning point – the point of departure of the emerging paradigm. It is both an ideographic representation of a gestalt – and hence of a result; and also a definition of a new direction, a specification of an epistemology.</p><p>The "conventional wisdom" that the people loath change, that they'll always what they do, is an oxymoron that keeps us from improving our condition. Why not use information, instead of habit, to make choices and choose directions? And why not choose and create information that is suitable or tailored to that purpose? It is that very choice, that direction, which is the mother of all good directions, that the bus ideogram is pointing toward. And it's that very direction that we want to bring to prominence. It is that humbly natural and yet spectacularly gratifying opportunity – of a far larger and more central role of knowledge in our lives and society – than the Modernity ideogram is informing us about.</p>
The way we direct our creative skills is not sustainable.
The way se are creative can be much more meaningfully directed.
<p>Production and consumption become informed (or guided). This opens up most wonderful new ways for creating both things and information!</p>
<p>And then there's the epistemology, the design epistemology as we call it. Notice the good situation we are in: We have liberated ourselves from the old epistemology (where we are obliged to learn 'the technique of Old Masters' and use it to depict the world as it 'truly is' – to use a metaphor from the world of the arts, which marks the transition to "modern art"). We are in a convention-making space – we can make any convention we like about what information and knowledge are all about, and what values we want to use to esteem and prioritize knowledge work. And so what the Modernity ideogram is saying is – yes, we need to recreate those 'headlights'. That task must be given highest priority. We cannot just continue using our inherited ways... But there's a subtler and deeper message here as well – and that's the key to the new epistemology: It is that (1) information, and knowledge, have a key role to perform in our society... So we have a whole new 'puzzle' – not the traditional 'reality puzzle' of traditional disciplines, but a much more timely 'puzzle' – how to make a knowledge work that turns us into an informed society? So that the democracy may function (lead to choices and direction that are wise and beneficial). So that we may truly benefit from innovation or creative work. </p>
<p>There's a whole new notion of 'basic research' that follows from the new epistemology! It's to CREATE knowledge work. This means being creative on a whole new level. This also means that writing academic articles will not necessarily be THE medium... So we challenge you to stretch your categories and look at what's being presented here as basic research – the key question is what comes next in the stream of actions that leads to those 'headlights' being physically in place... We are invited to be creative in entirely new ways! MUCH freer than what's been the case on the old side of the Mirror.... And yet far more responsible...</p>
<p>We should say that the design epistemology is what defines our two main keywords, knowledge federation and design epistemology. </p>– It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course.
– The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it.
– We are riding a common economic-political vehicle....
– 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 can reinvent the light bulb.
We can redirect the pursuit of happiness.
The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises is the most impactful way to intervene.
See
<p> The details of the philosophical foundations of the emerging creative frontier, as prototyped by knowledge federation and polyscopy. The relevance to our larger theme, the paradigm strategy, can be understood by analogy with the emergence of science. A good place to begin is the blog post Return to Reason, which presents an explanation of the historicity of our prevailing academic standards and practices (shows that they are not eternal ways to objective truth, but a product of specific circumstances and historical incidents that gave them their present shape) – from the pen of an expert (Stephen Toulmin, whose book "Return to Reason" is surveyed and commented in the blog post, was a reputed philosopher of science). The book manuscript Informing Must be Designed (whose introduction is open but whose chapters need to be unlocked with the password "Dubrovnik") introduces the methods and techniques of polyscopy, and then applies them to justify the claim made in its title (which is the same as the main message of the Modernity ideogram). Pay attention to Chapter 4, which introduces a novel way of understanding the power and politics – and shows why the new approach to knowledge is a necessary part of our "societal immune system". A more recent presentation of the foundations and method of polyscopy titled "What might play the role of Copernicus" (hear this recording while viewing these slides) is a play on the theme of another metaphor, Archimedes claim that he could "move the world" if he'd be given a lever and "a firm place to stand". An approach to knowledge is described that is capable of 'moving' our social and cultural world (a task to which we must give priority, now that we've acquired to "move" our physical world, albeit not always in the best possible way...).</p> <p> All this – the brief sketch provided above, and the earlier sketches just mentioned, are expected to converge to a book with tentative title "Knowledge Federation" and tentative subtitle "Science for the Third Millennium". This is intended to be the third book in Knowledge Federation Trilogy, by which the knowledge federation proposal will be placed into the public sphere. There's a strategy that accompanies this proposal – to create an event, and stir up the interest of the public for certain themes. And then follow up with a public dialog through which the suitable public sphere that is capable of reflecting on those themes and bringing them to a conclusion will be put in place. We cannot emphasize enough that this process is our goal, and our value proposition, not any specific idea or implementation of creative work for this new millennium. Here the medium truly is the message! </p>
<p>The key insights of the historical pioneers of the emerging creative frontier, and their histories. The relevance to our larger theme, the paradigm strategy, can be understood by analogy with the Industrial Revolution. Could our work in general, and our creative work in particular, become dramatically more efficient and effective? We shall see in Federation through Stories that Douglas Engelbart and Erich Jantsch – who are on these pages given the role of the icons of the two core ideas that mark the emerging frontier, respectively knowledge federation and systemic innovation – famously failed to find resonance for their ideas in the contemporary academia. We shall see also that their ideas tend to be ignored also by people whose profession has become to help us "resolve the global issues". Can our efforts to "change course" (as Peccei framed it) or to begin "guided evolution of society" (as Banathy framed it) really be done without the recourse of those scientific insights that can tell us what is possible and what is not? Can our overgrown muscles of technological and other innovation continue to be running rampant, uninformed by a suitably developed and informed "collective mind"? knowledge federation has been conceived as a new academic space where the contemporary Douglas Engelbart and Erich Jantsch will find their institutional home. </p>
<p>These insights and histories are sketches for the second book of Knowledge Federation Trilogy whose tentative title is "Systemic Innovation", and tentative subtitle "Democracy for the Third Millennium"</p>
<p>The first book of Knowledge Federation Trilogy titled "Liberation" and subtitled "Religion for the Third Millennium". The relevance to our larger theme, the paradigm strategy, can be understood by analogy with the Humanism and the Renaissance. Is a profound change of our worldview and values, of our very "cultural DNA" likely to result when we begin to federate rather than ignore the relevant insights? </p>
<p>Science liberated us from an outdated religious view and made us free to pursue happiness here on Earth. But what if we (as Heisenberg suggested – because of our "rigid and narrfow worldview") misunderstood BOTH happiness AND religion? What if ... The Liberation is ... well, read the book.. But it includes also the liberation from the imposed narrow worldview – just as the case was the last time around...</p>
<p>Religion has in all traditional society played the role of connecting us with each other into a community, and connecting us with our purpose. Religion has been the source of ethics... And then something happened. As Heisenberg wrote in Physics and Philosophy (about the "narrow and rigid frame of concepts" of 19th century science) "It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality that had been the object of the traditional reli- gion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, an open hostility of sci- ence toward religion developed, and even in the other countries there was an increasing tendency toward indifference toward such questions." Is an entirely new approach to religion, and to ethics and values, ready to emerge when we begin to once again take knowledge seriously (but handle it and organize it in an entirely new way)? See the introduction to Liberation, and the preliminary blog post sketches Science and Religion, and The Garden of Liberation.</p>
<p>Strategically, this book is conceived to "put the ball in play" – to attract public attention to these themes, by problematizing some of the issues that are so much part of our cultural makeup, of our socialized identity, that the act of turning them upside-down just cannot be ignored. Strategically, this book is playing a kind of a Judo trick on the present distribution of attention in the public and the media.</p>